Fortunately for you, sir, you have Kathy Chambers helping you, and she got on top of this quickly, letting us know the following via email:
Contrary to some reports, Sen. Roy Herron (D-Dresden) did not support the resolution opposing The Employee Free Choice Act.
Shortly before the vote, another senator began talking with Sen. Herron about different legislation. When the vote was suddenly called, Herron mistakenly pushed the “Aye” button, and before he could push the “No” button, the voting machine was locked. He immediately went to the Clerk to correct his vote. The official record will reflect that he did NOT vote for the resolution.
UPDATE: This has blown up BIG TIME, check Sean's update and Post Politics, the comments at both are BRUTAL.
8 comments:
Do you allow people to make mistakes? Have you ever made one that you needed to go back and correct? Give the man a break: he changed his vote and, from your vantage point, that is good enough policy.
I don't care if this guy fails; I don't like him for what he has said and done in other areas besides this misguided would-be article of faith of any TRUE Democrat.
Keep savaging your own party members, Left-Wing Caucasian (I refuse to use your racist pseudonym). That's the "big tent" in action.
Wintermute, unless someone is posting under your handle, if I'm not mistaken you made a crack about "wetbacks" on a newspaper blog site about the fraud in the clerk's office with licenses/registration/inspection stickers.
So someone can't self-identify, tongue in cheek, as a (insert slur word of choice here)without you calling him on it, but you can use a slur on another forum?
If I'm in error, I apologize in advance, but I feel sure I saw "wintermute" write "wetback" when the license fraud was first discussed.
Oops. I believe I may have made a mistake. Another regular contributer to the LWC (whatever that stands for, wink) may be the one who used "wetback" on the newspaper web comment section.
Goes back to the making-a-mistake original topic
The reality, as ever, stands as if someone makes any sort of "mistake" according to the dictates of authoritarian left wing righteousness, that person is castigated as if he or she belongs to the Legions of Satan, Capitalism or lives in an Insane Asylum. The basic operating premise might need to become--as it once was prior to the onset of political, social, theoretical, theological, race, gender, sexuality and class-based correctness (or, more simply, authoritarianism)--that without verifiable evidence to the contrary, a given person making a comment or raising a question is neither (fill in the blank epithet)nor "insane" a la the claims of the Inner Party in Orwell's _1984_. If that ever sense of tolerance, flexibility and intellectual as well as moral humility ever becomes a part of liberalism again, I might reconsider my move away from it. As it probably never will, however, and even as I cannot vote for a Republican until THEY renounce forever any use of code words via the Southern Strategy, I'll continue my move toward libertarianism. There, I hope, mutual respect and a presumtion of decency is more important than being "correct" and "rehabilitating" anyone who deviates from the Received Dictums of a Central Committee.
Authoritarian Left-wing righteousness? that's hilarious.
Libertarianism? You know how I define libetarian, right? A Republican who smokes dope!
Anon at 8:49, I know some of what you mean. But I think some things need central planning, at which libertarianism is weak. Lifestyle matters (government out of)they excel.
Liberal/liberalism is so misunderstood that it is a meaningless word whether meant as a compliment or a slur. I do agree that there are both left and right wing authoritarians.
Your answer to my response (6-11 at 9:09 AM) only validates my point. You will not deal with questions posed that concern your perspective. Since you have convinced yourself that anyone who deviates from the left wing Gospel is either, as you have said, "insane" ( a al the novel _1984_)or in need of "intervention" (as if examining evidence and reaching one's own conclusions constitutes a disease, it is clear that you and your fellows are not interested in conversation, dialogue or even respectful disagreement. You instead exhibit the hallmarks of thinking that you deny as "hilarious," but is nonetheless authoritarian and undemocratic. Those attitudes, if held by a "conservative" or "libertarian," would cause you to erupt with rage and condemnation. Examine your reaction to President Obama's invitation to Rick Warren to pray at the inauguration. Examine your reaction to any number of lunacies perpetrated by former President
43. Examine the venom that drips from your being when you discuss the "Republican Jihadists" in Congress or those that permeate society. Other than your equally-expressed arrogance of certitude, what is the "fundamental" difference between their attitude and yours? There is none, of course, and you are accordingly NOT the liberal you espouse to be. These years of seeing "liberalism" up close for all its worth are quite simply why I, as a formerly strong and unapologetic left winger, will no longer support those causes or the thinking on which they are based.
Post a Comment