I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a public official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that my officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering to the religious right. Of course, you can say that they are supporting them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true representative of Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be a true representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job?
I am still recalling listening to a "This American Life" episode in which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of Bush's stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't flip-flop. Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way? He's my representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If he can change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing. But he shouldn't be voting his convictions whilly-nilly. Ok, I will get off my soapbox now. :-) --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Like i said, an opportunistic flip-flopper. He was pro-choice, pro immigration (in terms of working something out instead of sounding like a Klansman), not averse to taxes as needed (which he calls "fees", but same difference). I heard a speech he gave just a few years back where he explicitly said he didn't want to try and recreate the Reagan days. Now he's a rabid ultr-conservative nut who evokes Reagan more than some of us call on God! > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
