Right to change mind
Published: Friday, Oct. 5, 2012, 9:18 p.m.
I believe columnist Eric Heyl is off-base in his recent attacks on state Rep. Peter Daley (“Switcharoo a Daley occurrence,” “Lawmaker's anger takes heavy toll,” Sept. 19, Sept. 9 and TribLIVE.com).
Mr. Heyl's key issue seems to be his focus on Rep. Daley attempting to make changes to legislation that he voted for. What would Heyl suggest that state representatives should do when a piece of policy they voted for is not reaching the desired outcome?
Should Daley continue to support legislation that he believes is not accomplishing its intended goal for fear that Heyl will cry “flip-flopper” from the mountains on high? A state representative's job is to do what is best in the public interest, and sometimes that will include making changes to legislation that just isn't working out as initially intended.
Creating an atmosphere where our representatives must continue to support legislation that is not accomplishing what it was intended to, or is having unintended negative outcomes, is not only not beneficial to our state, it's downright dangerous.
I'm glad we have representatives who are willing to stick their necks out to make sure that legislation that is doing more harm than good doesn't stay enacted, even if they voted for it initially.
George A. Matis
The writer is Republic Volunteer Fire Co.'s first assistant fire chief.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Ethanol & factory farming
- Government ‘forcing’ I
- Government ‘forcing’ II
- Judges for hire?
- Transportation bill
- Small charitable groups hurting
- School boards’ role
- Buy own insurance
- Wreaths for vets
- About Quinn & Rose I
- Help our troops