Do you feel it's wrong for these politicians to be taking this action?

[Zyphlin]

QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, by and large, act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.

Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.

As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?

The same goes for many of these others.

I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"

 

[Fiddytree]

What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"

I agree that Republicans were elected and reelected to the House on a platform that largely rested on the premise of important fiscal conservative and anti-ACA impulses. I also am aware that the President of the United States was re-elected on the basis of less fiscal restraint and the defense of the ACA. I am also aware that the Senate to a large extent remains a Democratic stronghold with similar ideas in mind as the President. This will of course cause conflict and confusion over whose mandate takes primacy.

I'm perhaps in the minority, but I believe that there are tactical limitations to implementing campaign promises. I even suggest that politicians should stretch the truth as to the extent that they will fulfill their promises, and prefer less chaotic resolutions. I also think that those that say they would tolerate a government shutdown are probably not considering how often many will not, or that their own minds will change in the process. In the end it may look like I advocate for principle-less, shrewd machine politicians that lean toward the status-quo, but I am more or less a firm believer in not resorting to dramatic actions with every passing bill in Congress. Eventually the attempts to remove a piece of legislation become disproportionate to the prudent course.

 

[Paschendale]

No, it seems rather silly to really blame an elected politician for doing what their constituents elected them to do. Far more sensible to blame the constituents who actually believe such insane and dangerous things are a good idea. The politicians are just selling to a market. Let's blame the market that actually eats up crap like supply side economics and "starve the beast" and the mathematically wrong idea that shutting down the government will save us money.

 

[Redress]

QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, "by and large", act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.

I can agree with this with a caveat. Namely, the by and large part is a large exception. I think many politicians run on platforms they know they cannot implement.

Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.

Yes and no. I think it is the job of politicians to work towards the goals they campaigned on within reason. If you can't get something done, you can't get it done. Wasting time on it does not serve your constituency. You lay out your beliefs while campaigning, but that should not blind you to reality. In this case, ACA is not going away. "Shutting down the government" and not raising the debt ceiling is not going to change it. You have competing priorities. Is your primary job to do this one thing, or to do the best you can do overall, compromising and working to get what you can get? Which serves your constituency better?

As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?

The issue is exactly what best serves her constituency. Can she stop ACA? No. Are these tactics going to work? No. Do they have a potential to harm those people she does serve? Yes.

The same goes for many of these others.

I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"

If method, not that they are doing it. I got no problem with making all the bills you want to defend or repeal ACA. That is congress fulfilling it's role. But when you can't get it done, trying to hijack other things, things important to the well being of this country, that is not kosher. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is guaranteed to not serve any one in this country.

 

[sbrettt]

QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, by and large, act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.

Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.

As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?

The same goes for many of these others.

I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"

I have to say, conservative politicians are a little better at representing their voters than Democrats are in my opinion.

 

[Zyphlin]

The issue is exactly what best serves her constituency. Can she stop ACA? No. Are these tactics going to work? No. Do they have a potential to harm those people she does serve? Yes.

Here's my issue.

How do you know she does not honestly believe that IF the government shuts down that the Democrats will compromise and dealy the implimentation of ACA? And do you think it's not possible she feels a few days of the government shut down does not outweigh the potential benefits of delaying and potentially then having another chance to remove the ACA?

You state the answers to your questions as if they're facts. They're not. Their opinion. Ones that someone else can have an entirely different view on.

But when you can't get it done, trying to hijack other things, things important to the well being of this country, that is not kosher.

Except many of these politicians have been arguing to try and stop ACA through any means necessary. Basically, now you're suggesting that they should be condemned for taking any means necessary. You say you agree to the first caveat, but here at the end you basically reveal the truth...that you feel that those willing to threaten and push ahead with a shut down in an effort to potentially get rid of/delay the ACA are doing so just to "spite" the Democrats. Based on that first premise...they're doing this action because they believe there is a chance of it actually working, and they feel the benefit of it working are worth the potential harm of it not/of getting to the point that it works.

 

[MaggieD]

QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, by and large, act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.

Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.

As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?

The same goes for many of these others.

I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"

I'd be completely behind them if they were trying to tweak the AHA. Or if they were getting "full-time" as relates to the AHA reduced to 20 hours per week. They could be doing many things that would make them look good. A futile attempt to repeal the law or indefinitely delay its implementation is swimming against the tide and a fool's errand.

These politicians you talk about whose constituents so vigorously oppose the AHA think that way because they've been listening to the Republican mantra that the sky is going to fall. It's simply not true.

 

[Cyrylek]

The tea party Young Turks do exactly what they promised to do, which is a rarity, and I would have respect for them if I were opposed to their agenda. (Just like I have some respect for the likes of Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, even though I don't care for their loony-left ideas at all).

The question is, I guess: Are they being counterproductive - forcing things like this, at the first opportunity, against odds?

Hard to say. The public opinion is fickle. Consequences of any particular action in politics are pretty much unpredictable.

My experience in life so far suggests that second opportunities are extremely rare, and odds are always against you. Do what you can, as your conscience and promises you made dictate. Do it now.

 

[Redress]

Here's my issue.

How do you know she does not honestly believe that IF the government shuts down that the Democrats will compromise and dealy the implimentation of ACA? And do you think it's not possible she feels a few days of the government shut down does not outweigh the potential benefits of delaying and potentially then having another chance to remove the ACA?

You state the answers to your questions as if they're facts. They're not. Their opinion. Ones that someone else can have an entirely different view on.

They are very educated opinions. The odds that ACA will be defunded or repealed approach zero. The odds that the tactics being used will harm her constituency approach 100 %. And I do not see "well, she really believes something painfully stupid" as much of a defense.

Except many of these politicians have been arguing to try and stop ACA through any means necessary. Basically, now you're suggesting that they should be condemned for taking any means necessary. You say you agree to the first caveat, but here at the end you basically reveal the truth...that you feel that those willing to threaten and push ahead with a shut down in an effort to potentially get rid of/delay the ACA are doing so just to "spite" the Democrats. Based on that first premise...they're doing this action because they believe there is a chance of it actually working, and they feel the benefit of it working are worth the potential harm of it not/of getting to the point that it works.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. The expression "cutting off her nose to spite her face" means to overreact in a destructive manner.

 

[sangha]

Here's my issue.

How do you know she does not honestly believe that IF the government shuts down that the Democrats will compromise and dealy the implimentation of ACA? And do you think it's not possible she feels a few days of the government shut down does not outweigh the potential benefits of delaying and potentially then having another chance to remove the ACA?

You state the answers to your questions as if they're facts. They're not. Their opinion. Ones that someone else can have an entirely different view on.

I don't care whether or not a politician "honestly believes" that they are doing the right thing. I understand that there is always a variety of thought and positions about both policy and tactics but there's a limit to "benefit of the doubt" and the extremists are not covered by it. It takes too much of a disconnection with logic and reason to think that holding things like the govts' continued operation, and the debt limit could possibly work out well for the nation for me to endorse such actions as "right"

Except many of these politicians have been arguing to try and stop ACA through any means necessary. Basically, now you're suggesting that they should be condemned for taking any means necessary. You say you agree to the first caveat, but here at the end you basically reveal the truth...that you feel that those willing to threaten and push ahead with a shut down in an effort to potentially get rid of/delay the ACA are doing so just to "spite" the Democrats. Based on that first premise...they're doing this action because they believe there is a chance of it actually working, and they feel the benefit of it working are worth the potential harm of it not/of getting to the point that it works.

Redress' use of the saying that includes the word "spite" does not imply that republicans are motivated by spite. It's a figure of speech, and like every figure of speech it's not meant to be interpreted literally.

And while some may believe this tactic will actually work I have no doubt that those people are deluded. For a politician to have such a distorted perception of a matter directly under their purview (ie politics) is at best such a sign of incompetence that I have no problem ridiculing them for taking such a position.

 

[Cyrylek]

the Republican mantra that the sky is going to fall. It's simply not true.

Oh, it is not going to fall: It will be gradually getting lower, lower and lower - until it is pressing against your face, like a coffin lid. A whimper, not a bang. This is a civilized country.

Here we have the greatest, most amazing health care potential ever, in the whole history of the human race: A scientific and technological superpower of the USA, perfectly ready to tackle medical problems that were unassailable even two or three decades ago.

And what are we doing?

Refusing absolutely to allow this to happen: making sure that the health care market is cornered, blocked and suffocated between the two obese monstrosities: the government bureaucracies and the faux-insurance industry.

This is what the Obamacare is all about.

It is not a step toward a relatively streamlined Scandinavian-style socialized health care (not what I want, but could be worse). It is not a step toward liberating the health care market forces (what I want, but doesn't seem to be happening, and the GOP is not much of help). It is a massive, concerted blow to the best of hopes of any sincere people both on the "the left" or "the right". It combines the worst of both worlds. It has to be resisted, tooth and nail, to the bitter end.

Just my typically humble opinion.

 

[JumpinJack]

QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

(SNIP)
I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"

It depends on what you mean by "taking a stance." To take a stance that is symbolic only, which harms, or may harm, citizens and the country, and which does not move the country toward the stance taken....no, that is not the proper thing to do. The first thing our political leaders should do, no matter what, is not harm citizens and the country. They should also not do things which stand in the way of the governance of the country. They are where they are for the purpose of governing. Governing includes furthering the laws in existence.

There are separate steps a politician can/should take in order to CHANGE laws their consitutuents don't like. It is THIS way in which the constituents have their voice in government.

Beward of politicians who grandstand. They don't do it for the benefit of their constituents or their country.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

dude only in a world gone totally insane would folks who believe in American values be pilloried as terrorists
like totally, ya know??

 

[Morality Games]

QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

There's been a lot of anger and resentment it seems aimed at the "tea partiers" in the Congress leveraging this "Crisis" as a means of attempting to stop/delay/thwart the ACA in some fashion. However, here's my question. Do you fault them?

First, would most agree that it's at least somewhat reasonable to assume that our elected officials, regardless of them being Republicans are Democrats, in general believe that the things they believe regarding the government are what's best for the health of the nation be it long term, short term, or both? IE...Democrats aren't secretly cackling as they try to "destroy america" and turn us into a "dependent state", nor are Republicans sitting with Mr. Burns steepled fingers attempting to rig the system because they hate minorities and want to just make the 1% rich. That both sides politicians, by and large, act and support things because they honestly do believe (whether you agree with them or not) that it's in the best interest of the country.

Second, would you agree with it's the job of a politician to represent his constituents and to be their voice in the government? And to attempt to uphold and follow through with those things upon which they campaigned on and gained the support of their constiuents over? While there's an understanding that sometimes things may change (with new info, the person no longer feels it's best for the country), some things may need to be lowered in priority, and sometimes they may not be successful...that in general, a politician should attempt to follow through with what they campaigned on.

As such...takes for example Renee Ellmers. Renee is a Republican that won a seat in the House, knocking out a Democratic incumbant. Renee is a former nurse whose primary reason for getting into politics was her opposition to the ACA. The primary campaign point of her 2010 run to get into the house was opposition to the ACA and aiming to attempt to fight it in any way possible. She was reelected in 2012 with that still a part of her campaign. While I can't find information about just her district, 50% of her state feels that the ACA would make things worse (with only 29% believing it'd make it better) [Source].

There should be no question, she honestly feels that the removal of the ACA is an important and necessary thing for the health of his country. There should be no question that she ousted a 7 term incumbant on the back of her opposition and pledge to fight the ACA. There should be no question that at least a reasonable majority of her constituents are negative, rather than positive, towards the ACA.

So why, other than you PERSONALLY DISAGREEING WITH HER, should she not represent her constituents and what she feels is best for the country with her vote?

The same goes for many of these others.

I can understand arguing against their points. I can understand suggesting their logic is wrong. I can understand with you feeling their belief of what's best is incorrect. I can understand you being frustrated with them trying to legally stop something that has been passed or possibly putting a government shut down at risk.

What I don't understand is the vitriol and anger vented towards them for daring to even DO this? Don't we typically WANT our politicians to do what they campaigned on and promised? Don't we typically WANT our politicians representing their constituents? Don't we generally WANT our politicians to attempt and have principles and stand on them?

I'm not asking "Do you agree with those in the congress like Rep. Ellmers stance?"...I'm asking "Do you think it's unreasonable or wrong that members of congress like Rep. Ellmers are taking these actions?"

I don't buy in your perception of the issue at all because I don't accept their motivations as honest. No matter how many former nurses you push forward as sincere opponents of Obamacare, there are ten other conservatives acting in some degree of false consciousness.

If Republicans aren't capable of honoring or even taking responsibility for hard working people losing their sources of income as well as any sense of job security, then they don't have a right to perform morally significant or politically important actions anyway.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

nice play there Morality:
Republicans aren't...taking responsibility for hard working people losing their sources of income

dude now it's the GOP's fault?
srsly? :shock:
come to think of it yer right the salvation of the nation does seem to lie solely with us teabaggers and we are failing miserably :doh

 

[Dezaad]

I believe it is irresponsible to campaign as the OP has described. So, my opposition to these politicians, and my ridicule of them, starts there. And once they are elected by irresponsible voters, my stance does not change. They, and the people who voted for them, are very much all at fault.

Furthermore, this is a Republic. Politicians are supposed to show leadership, and we are responsible to elect leaders. Leaders who are capable of making responsible decisions, even when it may cost them politically.

Properly understood, there is no political cover to be found by attempting to devise a relationship between politicians and voters where everyone is absolved of responsibility.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

every figure of speech it's not meant to be interpreted literally

and how many Republicans voted for socialized health care?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Many people don't understand or appreciate a principled stand by a politician because standing on principles is not the usual MO of the average politician. I, personally, have great respect for a politician who stands by what they believe in even if it potentially causes them to lose their seat or whatever next election they run in. It's partly why I have a lot of respect for former President GW Bush and why I have little respect for President Obama. Bush is a man of principle who makes mistakes for good reasons, Obama is a man totally lacking in principle who makes mistakes because he has no inner compass to guide him, whose only goals are personal and political.

I admire the politician outlined in the OP for two main reasons. Number one, she saw something her government was doing that she didn't like and instead of just bitching about it, she went out, put herself on the line, and convinced a majority of the electorate in her district to send her to Washington to change it. Secondly, when she got to Washington, she didn't forget where she came from and why she's there. Those are two very important reasons to admire her and not criticize her.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

:rock

Bush is a man of principle who makes mistakes for good reasons, Obama is a man totally lacking in principle who makes mistakes because he has no inner compass to guide him, whose only goals are personal and political.

 

[rathi]

If politicians want to listen to their constituents, fine, but there are proper methods to enact legislative change.

1) Get a legislative majority so you can pass/repeal bills using the democratic process. The Republicans don't have that at the moment, so they would have to wait for an election.
2) Cut a deal with the democrats in a quid pro quo exchange. Make an offer repealing certain provisions of the affordable care act in return for say immigration reform or something else the democrats want.

What is unacceptable is demanding legislative change, offering nothing in return and then threatening to damage the whole nation if you don't get your way. We are a Republic for damned good reasons and this is precisely the sort of case where sanity and stability must prevail over the mob.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

I believe I addressed this in a moar than adequate manner here
I'd like to say I'm a gonna follow you round n destroy your arguments butt they are ruined before you type them?

 

[jamesrage]

QUESTION: If a politician takes a stance that they campaigned heavily on and their constituents favor, should they be attacked for the act of taking the stance and why?

Not really.Because that is what they campaigned on. Their constituents would be severely pissed if the people they elected did nothing to do what they campaigned on regardless if those efforts are or are not in vain. But one side will always attack the other for opposing what they want.

 

[radcen]

I voted "No", but really it's "No... with a caveat".

A representative's responsibility is to their constituents... to a point. I don't have an issue with a block of politicians being obstructionist in theory, I'm just not sure the issues being used right now are it.

 

[mbig]

I'd be completely behind them if they were trying to tweak the AHA. Or if they were getting "full-time" as relates to the AHA reduced to 20 hours per week. They could be doing many things that would make them look good. A futile attempt to repeal the law or indefinitely delay its implementation is swimming against the tide and a fool's errand.

These politicians you talk about whose constituents so vigorously oppose the AHA think that way because they've been listening to the Republican mantra that the sky is going to fall. It's simply not true.

And that, IMO, is what Boehner is doing now.
Letting those who need to cause enough Mischief to make their constituents happy.
These are the same constituents who keep wanting to "Take the country back"... from an elected/Re-elected President. (!)

They lost the original vote on on ACA of Course, and don't have the votes to repeal it now either.
It was challenged in the UNSC as well and passed muster.

So What we have then is an Unprecedented and bizarre attempt to take the budget/country hostage on that basis: a passed Law.
If the Democrats/Prez ever allowed a small minority to be able to change/overturn a law using these tactics, it would be the end of our democracy.
Are other members on the Right willing to shut the country down over abortion or other traditional tough issues?
No.
This is Personal vendetta against a bill called 'Obamacare'. The official Moniker ACA, polls considerably better than the Prez Nickname.
Most people who are polled, don't eve know what's in it, just it's called Obamacare.
Six of One - Obamacare vs. The Affordable Care Act - YouTube

But back to the central OP point. Yes, they can do what they were elected to do, but that doesn't mean even Boehner should humor it. He is doing so for party unity and understanding their position.
Allowing a Clean Resolution (to fund the govt) to come to the floor would end the protest and show those who support it they are Not a majority and cannot change the law through these tactics.
These flat-earthers must be made to understand Obama IS the President.. Again.

I think this will end when the Debt Ceiling issue is conjoined and Democrats make other compromises to the GOP, Not Obamacare.
That saves face for everyone and gives Boehner some chips in the big game.

Thanks for the Thoughtful String/OP.
Who would have thought to look in this section for better discussion?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Absolutely, anyone that believes in limited government, low taxation, responsible fiscal policy & personal liberty and responsibility

is a bad person.