- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
What's the point of holding politicians to a promise if we don't think what they've promised to do is the best policy- sirdook
It's a fair point. As I said in the last sentence: "Much of that will, I presume, depend on what their alternative is."
- GG
I'm not sure we need to wait for the alternative. The original promise was based on something reviewable and public. She is now advocating for something that is not-so-public.
I'd give her a lot more leeway if she stated, for instance, that she wants to move away from a previous promise of using the AFM because she would feel better having a policy that can be modified ONLY through legislative means.
But, she didn't. She wants to make policy via a process and with information hidden from us. That is what needs to be rejected. Forget the argument of using the AFM or not. What I find offensive is that she wants to replace something reviewable (publicly available) with something hidden. That is what is reprehensible.
