Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
... So, are you saying a politician should only move on issues where there is a broad consensus? That, when faced with a 50-50 split, he should just... stay home and play video games or something? (Or are you saying he should only act when you happen to agree with him?)
That guy could conceivably argue that killing the unions will be good for the state of Wisconsin as a whole. Argue it well enough to be elected again. Why, then, shouldn't he act?
PS: I'm not saying I agree with anything he's done. Or even that I believe he had anybody's good but his in mind.
|
Then he should make that argument and not ignore the people out there protesting. Speak to them and try to convince them to support it. If he's trying and it isn't working, he should ask himself why it isn't and consider maybe his position isn't as solid as he thinks it is. Once he does that and still comes to the conclusion it's the right thing to then vote on it. Sometimes a politician needs to make an unpopular decision, but if it's an issue that's generating as much protest as this, he should make damn sure he's on the right side of it.