Many Members of Congress who signed Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge are now realizing what some us have known for a long time: that signing a pledge which "trumps" their oath of office is becoming politically untenable. Particularly at a time when a majority of the American people realize that viable efforts to reduce the burgeoning deficit will involve both spending cuts and tax increases, the Norquist anti-tax pledge is becoming an albatross around the necks of many who signed it.
Yet, in spite of this, some Members of Congress are running scared of Norquist's other pledge: to spend a ton of money to work against them in primaries and defeat them in general elections if they renounce his anti-tax pledge after they signed it.
This strikes me as de facto blackmail by Norquist. Aside from the question of whether any elected official who allows a "pledge" to a private individual to supersede his or her oath of office, there is a legitimate question, beyond the question of whether elected officials who DID sign the pledge should be thrown out of office anyway, for pledging fealty to a private individual over their constituents.
That said, tell me what you think: Is Grover Norquist, in effect, "blackmailing" Members of Congress to keep them from renouncing their pledges to him? Comments are welcome, as are your votes. Thank you.