For Me, But Not For Thee
May 2nd, 2008 | by Craig |OH NOES! Here comes the Out Of State Moneez! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11ONE!Eleventy!!
Just so I have the whole thing straight: It’s evidently OK for out of state interests to dictate policy to the executive and to the lege — without debate, without transparency — as long as the legislation is favorable to the sinestra.
But, if someone introduces initiatives that people can actually read, think about, then decide for themselves whether or not it’s appropriate, then it’s a Bad Thing™.
What am I missing?
[UPDATE]: It’s like these posts write themselves.
5 Responses to “For Me, But Not For Thee”
By Wulfgar on May 3, 2008 | Reply
What are you missing?
The fact that this is the same bunch of yahoos who are trying to hide who they are?
The same bunch of yahoos who paid people to lie in order to get signatures? (I was one of the people who was lied to, with the ‘you must sign for all three’ BS.)
Come on, Craig. There are reasons to like I-156, just as there are strong reasons to dislike it (it rather conflicts with the free-speech rhetoric laid out by your recent guest-blogger, yes?). But dismissing Matt’s concerns about the shady characters involved in this effort based only on coincidence? That’s not so effective. Not all out-of-state money or opinion is the same, now is it?
By Phil on May 4, 2008 | Reply
Psst, Wulfgar. Let me restate your last sentence more accurately for you:
All out of state money and opinions are equal, but some out of state money and opinions are more equal than others.
By Wulfgar on May 4, 2008 | Reply
Phil, kindly don’t pretend that your opinion is anything I’ve ever said or written. Thank you.
By Phil on May 5, 2008 | Reply
What? Cut too close to the bone for you there, Wulf?
By Mark T on May 5, 2008 | Reply
Trojan horsemeat, anyone?