Pearce's consistency in voting shows his critical thinking

Editor,

I am writing in response to Hugo Arias-Pulido's letter about Rep. Steve Pearce's visit to UNM. Arias-Pulido used few facts in his letter, and I would like to offer a few of those as well as an interesting perspective.

The main view that Arias-Pulido gave stated that Pearce was completely wrong in voting "no" on the financial bailout bill both times. He claimed Pearce should have voted "yes" because opposing the bill was "the stupidest thing anyone could do."

I have to disagree with this. The results of this highly controversial bill are yet to be seen by anyone. Those who opposed it were worried about long-term financial problems for the country, while those who supported the bill were worried about short-term difficulties. The fact is that nobody is sure what the effect of the bailout is yet. To blatantly state that opposing a highly complex bill is fundamentally wrong is ignorant.

In response to Pearce supporting his "pals in the Republican Party," the votes on the bailout bill were split in both the Democratic and Republican parties. In the first bill proposal, House Democrats split the vote with 140 voting "yes" and 95 voting "no". The House Republicans split the vote with 65 voting "yes" and 133 voting "no."

Based on this information, I don't believe that party bias is what the vote was based on. As far as Pearce having some sort of problem with his "critical-thinking skills" because of voting "no" both times, I have to say that I commend Pearce for voting consistently in something he believes in. He has his reasons for voting the way he did (which I'm sure he used his "critical thinking skills" to formulate), and he backed them up.

The new wave in politics is flip-flopping. Virtually no candidate supports one view on a topic for any extended period of time in today's world. According to LieCount.com, the Democratic Party has formulated 12 lies in the current election while the Republican Party has made 25 of their own. Honesty and consistency are not common in today's political world, and to have Pearce stand behind a position he has and support it is a breath of fresh air. If you ask me, more brainpower is used in supporting a decision than is used when miraculously changing your views when a bunch of sweeteners are added to a bill you "opposed".

Daniel Talley

UNM student