New Jersey’s House Members Support Patriot Act
The House voted last night on the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act. The majority of New Jersey’s delegation voted “yea”, with the measure passing the House 257-171. The chart below provides the roll call vote for New Jersey’s members of the House of Representatives.
We are beginning to see a pattern with these recent House votes on national security issues. Democrat Representatives Holt, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, and Rothman are voting against the majority opinion within New Jersey’s delegation, as well as the Congress as a whole. The left often throws around the expressions, “out of the mainstream” and “political extremists”, but always in the same breath with the term “right-wing”. Their logic escapes us.
Also see:
We are beginning to see a pattern with these recent House votes on national security issues. Democrat Representatives Holt, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, and Rothman are voting against the majority opinion within New Jersey’s delegation, as well as the Congress as a whole. The left often throws around the expressions, “out of the mainstream” and “political extremists”, but always in the same breath with the term “right-wing”. Their logic escapes us.
Also see: New Jersey’s House Members Show Support For Iraq War
New Jersey’s House Members Show Support For Gitmo
Political Extremists (Added 7/22 @ 7:55 pm)
Posted by Enlighten-NewJersey @ 11:09 PM
|
10 Comments:
Not a swipe... but how does a representative that votes against "majority" of the other NJ Representatives have anything to do with extremism?
Holt, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, and Rothman are democrats... they were voted into office by their consituents as democrats because of their democratic stance on the issues. So how can voting against what most of their constituents (after all they voted in these politicians' politics - including the one about civil liberties) feel is an attack on privacy an civil liberties is in some way wrong?
If anything, and I don't assert that Andrews and Menendez were wrong in how they voted -their better judgements were elected to office as well- but it would seem to me them voting against the party that they represent is more of a knock.
Lastly, Representatives don't vote in bulk. New Jersey doesn't have to go "all in" with votes... they each represent a district.
Ken, The left often uses the term "right-wing” extremist and we assume they d so as part of their “framing the issue” or “defining the opponent” strategy.
It was our understanding the definition of the word extremist is - one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics. The definition of norm is – average, median, usual.
Our point, why do those on the left label “right-wing” politicians, elected by majorities with records of voting with the majority, “extremists”? Does that seem logical lo you? It doesn’t seem logical to us, unless the purpose is to mislead people into thinking a measure, idea, person, etc. is not typically “with” the norm, average, majority.
Have Holt, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, and Rothman voted on these three recent national security measures as the majority of their constituents would have preferred as you suggest? We don’t know. However, if you believe all 13 New Jersey congressmen have, then the majority of New Jersey’s citizens would have supported all three measures.
Will Senators Lautenberg and Corzine vote on these measures in accordance with the preferences of the majority of New Jersey’s citizens (as evidenced by the votes of the state’s congressman) or against majority preferences? If the two vote against the majority, should Corzine and Lautenberg be labeled “extremists”?
We’ll bet the average citizen doesn’t have time to read and understand the measures voted upon by their representatives and most are not familiar with the voting record of their elected officals. Many rely on the “sound bites” offered up by the media and politicians on the issues. This leads us back to politicians labeling ideas, measures and people as extreme, when in fact the opposite is true.
Now, do we believe the majority is always right? No, we don’t. Do we believe politicians should vote using a some combination of their constituent’s preferences, as well as, their knowledge and best judgment? Yes, we do. Do we believe politicians should strictly vote the Party line? Absolutely not.
We believe politicians should not place their Party above the best interests of their constituents or the country, state, city etc. We’ll leave it to informed citizens to decide the motives of politicians.
In terms of something being an “attack on privacy and civil liberties” perhaps you could explain specifically what you mean or are referring to in your comment.
Interesting persepective on framing. Yes, with the majority of the Country skewed to the right 51-49, yes the "norm" skews a degree to the right as well. I contend though that legislation shouldn't be an all or nothing thing. In so, I reserve the usage of the term "extremist" when the stance is so radically right that it contradicts the middle. Just as you have reserve the right to label something as "extreme" if the idea conflicts the better portion of the 51%. People can't forget the 49%, whether it's left or right.
I don't know the specific situation in which you saw/heard something that was labeled as being extreme that you didn't think was or if you meant it just generally.
But both parties use framing to label extremism... Republicans carefully crafted "liberal" as a bad word / vial stereotype. And yes, Clinton helped the stereotype too. But there are so many degrees of being liberal... but the image was crafted: the tax and spend, tree-hugging, socialist, pagan sodomites. That generalizes us as evil people when really the middle ground of that is people that believe in progressive tax code that helps the little guy out, keep a heathly environment, and believes in a healthy seperation between church and state - so people can believe whatever religion they desire.
I agree, the officials' better judgement comes first, as it should. Yes, thankfully, moderates exist in both parties. That said, a politican calls him/herself a democrat or republican, it was because they were endorsed by the given party and all of the voters that believe in that party have that as an acknowledgement that he/she has the same philosophy.
I'm in Holt's district, as one of his constituents... I voted for him because I knew that he would vote in slight accordance with Joe Democrat. I can assume that their were more Joe Democrat voters in his district than John Republican voters - because he won. His constituency is more left. Now yes, the state voted more one way than the other... but he's not representing the state, just his constituency. Supply and demand. We're saying the same thing though.
As for the attack on privacy and civil liberties, I'm refering to the ACLU's stance on some provisions of the Patriot Act.
We didn’t label anyone extreme or an extremist, rather referred to this tactic by the left - labeling others in that manner. The 51% - 49% you cite is the vote tally in the Presidential election. Are we to conclude you believe 49% of the country aligns itself with the left wing of the Democrat Party? Wouldn’t you agree most people are some where in the “middle” regardless of party affiliation?
You say: “Republicans carefully crafted "liberal" as a bad word / vial stereotype.” The term liberal, one embraced by Jon Corzine for example, as well as, the latest iteration “progressive”, is shorthand for categorizing a person’s political philosophy, as is the term “conservative.”
Referring to someone as a liberal, assuming the person’s positions conforms to this political philosophy is only “bad” or “vial” if someone views liberal positions to be such. The same holds true of the conservative label/positions.
Now the terms “extreme”, “extremists” and “out of the mainstream” connotes someone advocating or supporting someone of something out of the norm or abnormal. For example, the left often refers to President Bush, Vice President Chaney, Ken Mehlman and other administration officials as right-wing extremists. This labeling by the left seems illogical, given as you have pointed out, 51% of voters have supported the positions advocated by these very officials. Even in New Jersey the Bush/Cheney ticket received 46% of the vote in 2004. Wouldn’t you agree the “extremist” label for the President, et al is false and purposefully misleading?
You say:“As for the attack on privacy and civil liberties, I'm referring to the ACLU's stance on some provisions of the Patriot Act.” We still don’t understand specifically which provisions of the Patriot Act you object to or with which ACLU positions you agree. You must have some specifics you could share that would help us understand your point of view.
You guys are so big on “facts” and providing “examples” why don’t you practice what you preach. Ken asked you … I don't know the specific situation in which you saw/heard something that was labeled as being extreme that you didn't think was or if you meant it just generally. -- You provide nothing but lies – no examples no proof you just repeat the left-wing calls people extremists. Why don’t you guys put up or shut up. I won’t hold my breath. Liars.
Anonymous, we were having a civil discussion with Ken on the subject. But if you want proof, we’ll give you proof. We’ll move this discussion to a main post and let readers decide if we are liars. Yes, we do like facts and examples and back up what we write with both.
If you can find a factual error on these pages, point it out with a link to a reputable source and we will happily post a correction. You might not like what we post, but facts are facts. As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts.
We are not convinced with blanket statements and name calling. People with persuasive arguments generally have the facts to back up their analysis or opinion. We are suspicious of people and politicians that make wild claims without explaining and backing up what they say or write with facts -actual facts, not distorted opinion.
In our opinion, challenging someone with the actual record and facts is not a negative attack. A dirty or negative attack is one based upon distortions and falsehoods.
While yes, I believe the majority of the counrty lies somewhere in the middle, in a two party system is at the halfway point. As you said: "Do we believe politicians should vote using a some combination of their constituent’s preferences, as well as, their knowledge and best judgment? Yes, we do."
Point taken on the liberal monicker, it is shorthand for a democrat's philosphy. Allow me to correct myself, liberals are too framed by conservatives as "liberal extremist."
Yes, I suppose by that logic it is wrong to label the President as a right wing extremist. Also by that same logic, all 'extremist' labels, including "liberal extremist", are illogical as well.
So here we are, watching both sides throw 'extremist snowballs' at each other (including I, at the times I reserve), now let me go back to my original question. What does having 4/6 NJ Democrat Representatives voting against a bill, which by the way passed, have to do with extremism?
That was your asseration? That the Democrats that voted against this bill were extremists and that those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
I could quote ACLU's stance on the bill and the reasons why 171 Representatives voted against it... you could make your case that they were being extreme... and then I could make a case for the times that the President is extreme - stem cell research.. but there we go again, lobbing snowballs at each other.
Plus I don't know if I can make it through another 37 comment weekend slugfest like last week. Have a nice weekend.
btw the way all my questions were rhetorical, I'm not looking for an answer.
damn, I hate re-reading my entries, I always make a thousand typos.
The first sentence should read: "in a two party system the division is at the halfway point."
also, the word is "assertion" not "asseration"
Ken, Well we have something in common - "typos". Don't worry about them.
Not all Democrats are liberals, so we don't agree that referring to someone as a liberal is the same as saying someone is a Democrat.
However, some people and politicians do have views that are extreme and may well be viewed and correctly called extremists.
What’s illogical is to call the duly elected leaders of the United States extremists, in this case President Bush, Vice President Cheney, etc - especially because this President, VP were elected to a second term.
Stem Cell research, not sure if government funds are the most efficient way to bring about medical innovation. We’d let private companies fund research.
Enjoy your weekend.
Post a Comment
<< Home