In a previous commentary I asked the question other local media will not: Where is TX19’s Jodey Arrington getting the resources to live with family in Washington when the majority of Texas congressmen, indeed the majority from most states, say they cannot afford to live there with their families?
In the published version of the commentary, a listener (or site user at least) leapt to Arrington-of-DC’s defense with this:
“I know that this would run contrary to your antagonistic predisposition towards Congressman Arrington, but did you ever stop to think that Congressman Arrington’s choice harkens back to the olden days of Washington, when Congressmen dedicated themselves to good governance rather than making speeches in town for a couple of days, then racing back home to gripe about how much they hated DC without ever accomplishing a thing?”
He seem to have history a bit backwards. The Congress was historically a part-time institution in which members only traveled to DC for the brief, relative to today, sessions. (We rose from a hinterland to world power under such condistions.)
The Arrington-backer espouses the big government, of-DC, liberal-progressive theory of professional governance counter to the Framers’ design. It’s right out of the Woodrow Wilson, FDR canon.
My criticism is based upon specific actions taken by Arrington relative to other Congressmen, it is not simply pulled out of the air.
Also interesting is that he ignores wholly the issue put forward by the Texas Tribune and the obvious question of resources I added; issuing an ad hominem defense only.
My criticism is based upon specific actions taken by Arrington relative to other Congressmen, it is not simply pulled out of the air.
In short, the quick defense of Arrington attempts to make it appear that my not being a supporter of his somehow caused the Texas Tribune to write the original story; if only I had that power. And, he indirectly makes the case for Arrington-of-DC being a part of the big government progressive wing of the GOP.
If you’re going to defend your buddy, you might actually try addressing the issue put forward and not add to the critics’ arguments.
Arrington-of-DC supporter makes progressivist case for him
Robert Pratt
In a previous commentary I asked the question other local media will not: Where is TX19’s Jodey Arrington getting the resources to live with family in Washington when the majority of Texas congressmen, indeed the majority from most states, say they cannot afford to live there with their families?
In the published version of the commentary, a listener (or site user at least) leapt to Arrington-of-DC’s defense with this:
“I know that this would run contrary to your antagonistic predisposition towards Congressman Arrington, but did you ever stop to think that Congressman Arrington’s choice harkens back to the olden days of Washington, when Congressmen dedicated themselves to good governance rather than making speeches in town for a couple of days, then racing back home to gripe about how much they hated DC without ever accomplishing a thing?”
He seem to have history a bit backwards. The Congress was historically a part-time institution in which members only traveled to DC for the brief, relative to today, sessions. (We rose from a hinterland to world power under such condistions.)
The Arrington-backer espouses the big government, of-DC, liberal-progressive theory of professional governance counter to the Framers’ design. It’s right out of the Woodrow Wilson, FDR canon.
My criticism is based upon specific actions taken by Arrington relative to other Congressmen, it is not simply pulled out of the air.
Also interesting is that he ignores wholly the issue put forward by the Texas Tribune and the obvious question of resources I added; issuing an ad hominem defense only.
My criticism is based upon specific actions taken by Arrington relative to other Congressmen, it is not simply pulled out of the air.
In short, the quick defense of Arrington attempts to make it appear that my not being a supporter of his somehow caused the Texas Tribune to write the original story; if only I had that power. And, he indirectly makes the case for Arrington-of-DC being a part of the big government progressive wing of the GOP.
If you’re going to defend your buddy, you might actually try addressing the issue put forward and not add to the critics’ arguments.