Tuesday, June 06, 2006

David Vitter: "Protecting" marriage instead of his constituents

Let me be honest. I don't like David Vitter.

I didn't like him when he was representative of first district, and I certainly don't like him now that he is senator. It's not just because of the part he played in Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. Nor is it the fact he co-sponsored the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (S.1858), which tacitly states that disaster loans "may not be canceled". And while his personal ideologies clash with my own, moral qualms are not the only reason I abhor the man.

Vitter is one of the many U.S. politicians who does not have his priorities straight. In Post-K Louisiana, articles regarding wetlands, levees, and hurricane preparedness, flood the Times-Picayune. Issues like immigration and gay marriage find their place in Da Paper, but they're rarely front page material. People are more concerned with surviving another hurricane season than they are with encroaching on the civil rights of others.

However, Vitter seems to think he knows where our interests lie.

Vitter choose to co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J.RES.1), but not the Emergency Health Care Relief Act of 2005 (S.1716), which would "provide emergency health care relief for survivors of Hurricane Katrina, and for other purposes"--for his constituents.

And when Landrieu threatened to block Bush's appointments requiring senate confirmation in hopes of stimulating the progress of flood restoration legislation, Vitter was content to blast Landrieu for her efforts on the senate floor when she participated in democratic filibusters that blocked Bush court nominees. It's hardly difficult to understand why Landrieu would be forced to block nominations in order to spur action; even despite Landrieu's best efforts, the Emergency Spending Package has been placed on the backburner this week in lieu of more pressing agenda: "preserving the sanctity of marriage".

Somehow, I fail to see the point in preserving the "sanctity of marriage" when you're unable to preserve the lives of your own constituents.

If you haven't already, write Vitter and let him know what's on your mind.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home