U.S. Rep. James Walsh last week took a bold position in his vote on the House's rejection of President Bush's Iraq policy.
In speaking out against Bush's decision to send additional troops to Iraq, Walsh demonstrated that he heard the voice of the voters this past fall.
In 2002, Walsh voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. But since that time the “evidence” that Iraq posed a serious global threat has been discounted; Iraq's tyrannical leader has been executed; and a newly elected government has begun to take shape there.
Last fall, with growing discontent over the continuing loss of American life in Iraq as one of the main factors, voters seeking change swept in a slew of Democratic candidates to state and national offices.
And while Walsh prevailed in a tight race against Democrat Dan Maffei, he seems to have gotten the message that a growing number of Americans are losing patience with the Bush Administration over the way the war in Iraq is being handled.
For freshman U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, going along with the resolution in the Democratic-controlled House was an easy choice to make.
Walsh, on the other hand, was one of only 17 Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, and he was the only one from New York to do so.
Party politics are king in Washington, D.C., and it took courage for Walsh to vote against Bush.
Walsh said on the floor of the House last week that elected officials “have a responsibility to express the will of the American people as we perceive it.”
More and more voters today are siding with individual candidates rather than party affiliation.
Walsh's vote against sending more troops to Iraq shows that he's more concerned with being a true representative of the people than making nice with his fellow Republicans.
In 2002, Walsh voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. But since that time the “evidence” that Iraq posed a serious global threat has been discounted; Iraq's tyrannical leader has been executed; and a newly elected government has begun to take shape there.
Last fall, with growing discontent over the continuing loss of American life in Iraq as one of the main factors, voters seeking change swept in a slew of Democratic candidates to state and national offices.
And while Walsh prevailed in a tight race against Democrat Dan Maffei, he seems to have gotten the message that a growing number of Americans are losing patience with the Bush Administration over the way the war in Iraq is being handled.
For freshman U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, going along with the resolution in the Democratic-controlled House was an easy choice to make.
Walsh, on the other hand, was one of only 17 Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, and he was the only one from New York to do so.
Party politics are king in Washington, D.C., and it took courage for Walsh to vote against Bush.
Walsh said on the floor of the House last week that elected officials “have a responsibility to express the will of the American people as we perceive it.”
More and more voters today are siding with individual candidates rather than party affiliation.
Walsh's vote against sending more troops to Iraq shows that he's more concerned with being a true representative of the people than making nice with his fellow Republicans.
The Citizens' Say
There are 1 comment(s)
Mistakes were made wrote on Feb 21, 2007 11:37 AM: