Comments on: Trumansburg Impeachment Inquiry Resolution Deadlocked

By: Allen Carstensen

Allen Carstensen — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:58:37 +0000

Chris Thomas has refused to post an answer to the above questions here. He answered my email, however, and I have posted it on my blog at http://trumansburgimpeachment.blogspot.com/

By: jane

jane — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:10:53 +0000

Thank you David and Marty for having the courage to vote the people’s voice. David you especially impressed me with your well reasoned and eloquent comments if you happen to read this. However, it saddened me to see the lack of thought put forward to this issue by John and Chris. I disagree that they may fear Hart the elder, they seemed to have made their mind up before a word was uttered while providing nothing more of a defense than its not a worthwhile endeavor to pursue. Rordan’s misuse of his time by labeling the supporters of the resolution the same as those who would call soldiers ‘baby killers’ sickened me. That was truly shameful. In fact Rordan I don’t understand how as a grown man you can sit there when your father speaks on your behalf. It reminds me of the fathers on the sidelines of their child’s ballgame yelling at the other team. Hart the elder seems angered and confused (especially likening the US occupation of Iraq as some necessary religious crusade against Muslims!), truly someone who does his sons career more harm than good. I feel sorry for you Rordan that you can’t think for yourself and rather parrot your fathers opinions. I will pray you may one day be free of that burden. Again thank you to the many that supported this.

By: Allen Carstensen

Allen Carstensen — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:47:27 +0000

Chris Thomas,

Please respond to the posts above here.

My question is how many more signatures would you need to see in-order to change your vote?

Keep in mind that not all registered voters vote, and that a significant percentage of people that would like to see the resolution passed are not comfortable signing. (This is not private, and Bush surely keeps an enemies list)

I will email this to you in case you are not reading this thread.

By: Mary Bouchard

Mary Bouchard — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:56:57 +0000

That’s a very astute observation, Michael.

Unfortunately, the politics of divisiveness and hate pack a potent punch. In a way, I can understand Thomas’ reluctance to set himself in Hart’s crosshairs. It’s not a comfortable position to be in. Hah! He probably thought, oh I can do something good for the Village by serving as Village Trustee. But being in Village government is a real education, not the least of which is learning about the people you’d rather not be around.

May peace abide around us and within us!

By: Lou Plex

Lou Plex — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:11:06 +0000

Chris Thomas seems to have made up his mind a long time ago, and has stubbornly refused to pay attention to any information after that.

By: Michael Dineen

Michael Dineen — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:45:44 +0000

In general, the duty of an elected representative is to vote in the direction that he believes best represents the will of the majority of his constituents.

Of course there will be times when, for reasons of conscience, an official believes he must vote in opposition to the people he represents. This could happen if he believes that the majority opinion is unjust or immoral. For instance, if an elected official has a strong personal opposition to abortion, or capital punishment, he could honestly justify voting against the people he represents.

In light of this, Chris Thomas’ vote at last nights meeting was particularly puzzling. He openly stated that he believed in the goal of the resolution — to encourage an investigation by the U.S. Congress into whether the many allegations of crimes and abuses of power by George Bush and Dick Cheney warrant impeachment. He also acknowledged his belief that the citizens favoring the resolution had amply demonstrated strong support for this measure in the community — whether measured by a supporting petition with signatures from more than 10% of the village’s registerd voters or by turn-out at the meeting.

So, whether he chose to vote to support the majority of his constituents or to vote his conscience, he should have voted for the resolution. And yet he didn’t. Is he that afraid of the community’s conservative faction? Was he intimidated by Rordan Hart’s tactic of equating support of this resolution with calling our soldiers “baby killers”? Or possibly by Geoffry Hart’s argument that the dangers facing our country are so great, so unique, and so imminent that it is no longer appropriate to demand accountability of the president?