People have been throwing out the phrase "I'm not going to have a litmus test" on such and such an issue for some time now. Coincidentally, I only see a certain type of candidate use this phrase: ____ A person that doesn't want to anger his or her constituency and their constituency is in the minority view on that issue. ____ To me, this phrase is empty. It means nothing, and in fact it is a lie. If you truly believe one certain way on issue X, then WHY NOT have a 'litmus test' on that issue? The answer "I have no idea, so I'm not going to have a litmus test" makes a hell of a lot more sense, in that regard. Otherwise, you merely leave your constituency hanging on their beliefs as to what your true intentions are, and the rest of the populace playing their odds that you won't make them regret their vote. Damn politics is annoying. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Well, I think I can give an example as to why saying 'not giving a litmus test' makes sense. To me the most important attributes in a candidate are 1) convictions, and 2) in absence of any conviction, being anti-abortion. Unfortunately, probably 99% of politicians have no conviction (or are afraid to say so). That means I either have to vote for someone who has no chance of winning (Alan Keyes, for example), or vote for someone who is anti-abortion (or not vote, period, which is where I'm leaning). To me, that says that abortion is an important issue for me, but is not necessarily a 'litmus test'. ------------------ Winnifred Skinner is a slut.
