I give props to Illinois Congressman Phil Hare.
He said something stupid, but at least he has the balls to defend his position in front of his constituents. I suspect that his handlers won't allow him to be exposed to his constituents again in such a manner.
Congressmen are supposed to be Average Joe's serving a term or two and senators the deep thinkers serving in DC for the long haul. That's what I was taught in civics classes.
So while I disagree with Congressman Hare, I deeply appreciate his willingness to sit there and get hammered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The aging Boomer versus the Gen Y folks behind the camera??
Guess who wins. :-p
He doesn't exactly "sit there and get hammered". He walks out after a whopping 2 minutes of getting his a** handed to him. Confusing the Constitution and the Declaration, admitting he doesn't care about the Constitution, unable to answer where the Constitution allows for an insurance mandate, unable to answer how he read 8100 pages in a short time, etc. Drives off like a coward.
I suppose it *is* embarrassing as a 60-year-old man to be out-argued by a bunch of kids in their 20's.
err... yeah.
Blogger was not supposed to post that almost 10 times. Delete 7 of them.
Hey Minatti,
off subject but thought you might find this interesting.... how much ya wanna bet the Chinese are gonna pay up?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/chinesemade-drywall-destr_n_523748.html
Ummm, do back-bench members of the HoR have "handlers"?
When the contitution was set up there was a reason the Congress had breaks, to meet with constituents. This is part of his job. He runs because what he did is indefensible. The person behind the camera is correct he is to protect and uphold the Constitution.
We must remember though that he believes everything he says and will use any sob story, true or not, to make his point.
What the congressman should have said is that congress legislates and the federal judiciary rules on constitutional issues. He should have then pointed out that the judiciary has ruled on numerous occasions that if you show up sick at an emergency room with no money or insurance, you have a right to be treated, the hospital cannot turn you away. And then he should have asked the questioner where is that specified in the constitution?
Post a Comment