AB458  |   Home  |   Fort Hood Shooting
Thursday, November 05, 2009

Doyle Won’t Sign Drunk Driving Pledge

Heh.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle claims OWI reform is a leading issue on his agenda, but he will not sign a student’s pledge agreeing to resign if he is ever caught drinking and driving.

A group of students from Schofield created “Lacey’s Pledge” and sent it to Wisconsin lawmakers. The namesake of the bill is Lacey Meinel, a local girl who was killed in a drunk driving accident. The pledge asked them to agree to resign if arrested for OWI. To their dismay, only one lawmaker actually signed the agreement.

The Governor did issue a statement, saying he thinks he is already held accountable for his actions through the votes of his constituents.

I wouldn’t sign it either.

(10) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1941 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. I wouldn’t sign it either.

    I would.  So should Doyle and all the lawmakers.  If you are going to hold yourself up as worthy to govern, you should be held to a high standard.  And the “just human” excuse is not valid here.  It’s not difficult to not get drunk.  It’s called self control.

    They are all cowards.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2009 at 2057 hrs


  2. Get real Marvin.  They’re politicians not Saints.  And, with as low as the legal limit is it is not really that hard to accidentally get legally drunk.  Could they avoid it?  Sure, but I didn’t see that anywhere in the oath of office.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2009 at 2155 hrs


  3. Regardless of the issue, I don’t think any politician worth their salt should sign pledges, petitions, promises, or any other letter not penned by their own hand. 

    Good for Doyle and the other unsigned lawmakersl; hard cheese to the students.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2009 at 2204 hrs


  4. It’s not difficult to not get drunk - but that’s not even what we’re talking about here. I don’t care if you get drunk or not - and have as much understanding for what alcoholics go through, as anybody. We’re talking about getting drunk and then operating a motor vehicle putting innocent lives in danger. What really frustrates me is that everybody seems so willing to just give people a pass at the idea of - “well they were drunk of course they made a poor decision.” First of all, that’s really horrific logic there. But more importantly, in the vast majority of cases, a person makes the decision when they are perfectly sober. You drive to a bar along - without any sort of arrangement or plan beforehand for another way to got home - then you’ve made the decision to drive drunk willfully and before the first drink was poured.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2009 at 2348 hrs


  5. I don’t see what the big deal is. I mean if Doyle does sign it and breaks the pledge, it wouldn’t be something new now would it?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 05, 2009 at 2349 hrs


  6. I don’t see what the big deal is. I mean if Doyle does sign it and breaks the pledge, it wouldn’t be something new now would it?

    I was gonna say, it’s not like politicians have ever signed something and then done the exact opposite.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 0005 hrs


  7. The chances of me getting an OWI are zero but I also would not sign it. It’s insulting. Why not replace OWI with murder, child molesting, fraud, etc etc.
    Ah, youth.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 0047 hrs


  8. Regardless of the issue, I don’t think any politician worth their salt should sign pledges, petitions, promises, or any other letter not penned by their own hand.

    Exactly the point that was being made when Owen wanted legislators to sign his pledge.  Yet he made a point of demonizing them anyway.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 0823 hrs


  9. Needless to say, I disagree with that statement.  I would not have signed this pledge because it prescribed a specific consequence for behavior before knowing the circumstances of that behavior and it is for behavior outside of his official duties. 

    My pledge was specific to actions that legislators would take in their official duties and didn’t prescribe any consequence.  The only consequence would have been that readers of B&S would have known that they broke their pledge and could have used that as a factor in making their choices in the subsequent election. 

    Were I an elected official, I’d evaluate each request to sign a pledge one at a time.

    Posted by Owen on November 06, 2009 at 0921 hrs


  10. We should not, we must not and I will not raise glasses.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 06, 2009 at 1333 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.