bottom line - 15 June 2008 01:21 PM

Penn. Leg. did a similar thing--not 223% raise.,but a hefty raise and they were voted out and had recalls,etc. Caused big turnover in Leg.

What they hell were they thinking,besides greed ? Political suicide......

Who knows what they are thinking half of the time. This time it pushed people over the edge and hopefully it will not be forgotten. Recalls would be nice but someone needs to get organized.

Where is Hunter ? Other than to show up to vote himself a greedy payraise--he’s MIA....not returning e-mails or calls....

Notice NO ONE is talking about Hunter for 6th anymore....hehehehehheeh

Bottom have you been able to formulate a post on how KBB and Jindal differ fiscally yet??

I. B. Freeman - 18 June 2008 06:05 PM

Bottom have you been able to formulate a post on how KBB and Jindal differ fiscally yet??

I know blanco did not bust the spending cap and pay off all her legislator friends. She also signed bills into office instead of just letting them
become law by ignoring them.

There seems to be a “common thread” running through these threads and that is.........

I will not vote for him again

I voted for him the first time but I wont do it again

I wouldnt have voted for him if.............

Someone is passing around recall papers on Hunter Greene--it had 234 signatures already..I was 235.

bottom line - 19 June 2008 09:07 PM

Someone is passing around recall papers on Hunter Greene--it had 234 signatures already..I was 235.

Cool...I wonder if anyone is doing the same for Foil.

Have not heard about Foil....

I think all legislators who voted for bill should be recalled.  AND, if our governor doesn’t veto bill he should also be recalled. I am so SICK of him I cannot take another 3 years.

Foil is my representative and I have been so impressed with him up until this vote. Now...I wonder about his political future.

Ok so everyone is so concerned about this pay raise vote....what about the votes from the rest of the session? Why should someone be judged on the way they voted for one vote out of 6 months of votes?

MsBoJangles - 24 June 2008 12:54 AM

Ok so everyone is so concerned about this pay raise vote....what about the votes from the rest of the session? Why should someone be judged on the way they voted for one vote out of 6 months of votes?

Because sometimes that one vote is enough to negate anything good you did that entire session.  Put another way, say the leading citizen in a small town has always been a good citizen, helping with all the local charity events, raising money for the Scouts, the American Cancer Society, spearheading the drive to get a no-kill animal shelter, whatever.

Then one day you open the local paper and find that he was arrested the night before for skimming so much money from the local public utility that the long-term projections indicated that you may well have to pay more for your utilities sometime in the future, or the public utility would become bankrupt.

Do you say “should he really be judged just on that one act?  Shouldn’t we be looking at everything he’s done?”

MsBoJangles - 24 June 2008 12:54 AM

Ok so everyone is so concerned about this pay raise vote....what about the votes from the rest of the session? Why should someone be judged on the way they voted for one vote out of 6 months of votes?

I think that is personal choice.  In anyone’s political career, you know very well that one thing can very well ruin someone.  Perhaps you don’t see it that way, but this is terribly important to the voters out there.  Fortunately, it isn’t up to one person to decide that for us.  You vote how you want, and others will do the same.

It’s more than just a money issue.  Much more.

Creole Catholic - 24 June 2008 06:08 AM

Because sometimes that one vote is enough to negate anything good you did that entire session.  Put another way, say the leading citizen in a small town has always been a good citizen, helping with all the local charity events, raising money for the Scouts, the American Cancer Society, spearheading the drive to get a no-kill animal shelter, whatever.

Then one day you open the local paper and find that he was arrested the night before for skimming so much money from the local public utility that the long-term projections indicated that you may well have to pay more for your utilities sometime in the future, or the public utility would become bankrupt.

Do you say “should he really be judged just on that one act?  Shouldn’t we be looking at everything he’s done?”

Your comparison isn’t fair.  In your example, you learn that the citizen has been involved in criminal activity.  Are you claiming that the Governor and Legislators have committed a crime?  I don’t think you’re saying that.

So then this is just a matter of a “bad vote.” You disagree - strongly - with your Legislator and Governor. 

OK, then what?

Well, I still say that politicians shouldn’t be defined on one vote or one issue. 

Take a look at the actual voting record of your favorite politician.  I can remember being so proud that Reagan was our President, yet sometimes I was horrified at some of his individual policies.  You’re not going to agree with anyone all the time, not with your spouse, not with your best friend, and certainly not with an elected official.

Trollfessor - 24 June 2008 08:07 AM

Well, I still say that politicians shouldn’t be defined on one vote or one issue. 

Take a look at the actual voting record of your favorite politician.  I can remember being so proud that Reagan was our President, yet sometimes I was horrified at some of his individual policies.  You’re not going to agree with anyone all the time, not with your spouse, not with your best friend, and certainly not with an elected official.

I could pick two or three votes that, to my way of thinking, were so dumb all the “yes” voters should be thrown out.  The creationism bill, for example.  But if I had my way on recalling them (all but three, I believe) for that bill plus about any other single issue, there’d be nobody left in the legislature.  You do have to look at the overall record and constituent service.