Skip to main content

View Diary: Biden gives Republicans one last chance to avoid 'fiscal cliff' (330 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So is a candidate supposed to pick and chose (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splintersawry

    which of the positions he/she ran on, and the promises he/she made, to just throw away after the election?  

    How is Rep. Scalise supposed to know which of the promises he made to get elected should be disregarded because the people didn't really want that?

    And should Rep. Richmond in LA-02 do the same thing?  

    That seems to me to be a very bad argument to make.  Someone who runs for an office on a specific platform -- like the President -- has to assume that those who voted for him or her support that platform.  Yes, they may have to compromise, but I think they have to assume that their constituents expect them to push for the positions that they ran on.  Anything else gives all politicians license to, after the get elected, completely ignore promises they made to the voters when they were campaigning.  

    •  If they want to (0+ / 0-)

      back themselves into a corner by making absolute promises, that is their problem. But regardless, if they agree to hike it over $500k that is still hiking it. If it's going up somewhere you can't argue there is a principled reason based on their promises to raise it here but not there. He said none. If he votes for any he has already broken that promise.

      Anyway, your comment is not what I was saying, which was rather that if he does it at 250 instead of 500 I doubt most people will care. How does he know what the line is - I'm gonna say common sense and what he hears from his district. Anyway though, if you are going to be craven enough to run on an unworkable platform when you know the cliff is looming, you will eventually have to face the fact that you may be primaried. The reelection rate of incumbents is huge though so he probably doesn't have to worry too much.

      •  Scalise may vote for the deal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splintersawry

        I don't say that he won't compromise.  But he has to assume that he then needs to explain to his constituents why he had to move somewhat off his position.  He has to assume that this constituents wanted him to stand firm on no new taxes.  Yes, his constituents will care.  Why do you think most Republicans are more afraid of a primary challenge than a general election?  The same would hold true for Scalise.  If he votes for this deal (assuming it happens), he has to be able to explain it, or he risks that voters will vote him out in 2014 for breaking his campaign promise.  

        Where I disagreed with you is the notion that Republicans don't care about what their constituents think or that they don't reflect what their constituents think.  People like Scalise absolutely reflect what their constituents think -- that's why they are worried about a primary challenge.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site