As the current impeachment debate slogs along, more and more members of Congress are struggling with which theory best serves them.
My bias is that an act of conscience is the preferred choice. To me, it's much higher on the moral reasoning spectrum. That skill seems most desireable for a lawmaker in my book.
Not so with so many in Congress today and their districts. The country is awash with divided political opinion and most shocking is that so many are having a difficult time deciphering just what it is that they think
How will I know what I think until I see what I write
My advice is t do a little writing if this is such a difficult choice. But then we have competing narratives detailing just exactly what this vote is all about. I concede that both sides have some (albeit very few) valid points but when indisputable facts fail to create an agreement, then you know we're in trouble. So to paraphrase a useful phrase rooted in the lore of impeachment, "what did the President do and when did he do it."
It seems like all these folks who wear the Congressional pin ought to be able to agree on what was done when. It hasn't happened yet, I'm afraid.
Today the news cycle was sporting a new tale. A Democrat, who was having trouble agreeing with his constituency over his aye or nay vote on impeachment has decided to become a Republican. He fears losing re-election. I hope the people he represents make him pay for that choice. Not because he wants to change party, but because he refuses to grapple with his conscience. Does this guy know what he believes and values? How could he, fear got in the way. Hard choices take real leadership. The kind of leadership that a feather in the wind political seems oblivious to.
No comments:
Post a Comment