Thursday, April 05, 2007

Reclaiming the High Ground

Republican leadership in the General Assembly made a smart move yesterday when encouraging the Governor to veto four bills that epitomize the left-wing tilt our state government has taken this year.

The four bills selected by the leadership are classic examples of leadership that is more hell-bent on being ideologues as opposed to leaders. Sure, the far left gets excited with this kind of legislation, but I'm sure that your average Maryland voter does not want drug offenders serving mandatory minimum sentences to have parole available to them. Nor do they want felons to have the right to vote. Nor do I think that the middle class Maryland taxpayer wants to foot the bill for instate tuition for illegal immigrants. And while the issue surrounding the electoral college interstate compact bill is more obtuse, clearly it is a sign that things are not right in Annapolis.

Mainstream Marylanders likely think that these issues are an ideological bridge too far.

This is a good effort for Republican legislators to get some publicity for our side, as well as an opportunity to show how out of touch the leadership in Annapolis is with the voters of the state of Maryland.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger DemocracyAdvocate said...

On the contrary, Republican opposition to a national popular vote shows a weird aversion to majority sentiment. Republicans used to support a national popular vote -- former presidents like Nixon, Ford and GHB Bush and others like Dole, Danforth and Baker. Opposing one-person, one-vote is rather bizarre.

10:15 PM  
Blogger Brian Griffiths said...

It's not aversion to majority sentiment. Besides, nobody has explained to me how this is going to fly and not cause armed rebellion if we get a situation again where no candidate reaches a majority, which could theoretically happen in the new wild and wooly world this would create.

The problem is less with the one man, one vote philosophy. The real problem here is subverting the Constitutional amendment process. The way this is being done is unacceptable. I do not agree with such a concept, but it is much more legitimate to do this through the amendment process. Of course, such an amendment has no chance of passing in either house of Congress, nor would it ever get the approval of 38 state legislatures.

10:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Feed