What Was The Right Thing For Them To Do?

How many times we have agonized that those in congress won’t listen to the people who elected them?   Many times we’ve cursed our representatives for voting party lines instead of doing what their constituents want and demand.   After all, when we send a man or woman to the House of Representatives, we send them to represent us, the people of their district.   There not there to represent you who live in another district or state or their political party, there to represent the people who voted them into office and them only.  Isn’t that what a Republic is? 

 

Merriam-Webster:   Republic -   a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them

 

Congressman Ike Skelton (D) Missouri is taking heat from Democrats and Liberals in his district for voting against the health care bill.  He was the only Democrat Congressman from Missouri to do so.   Skelton, although a Democrat, represents a district that almost always votes Republican.  Skelton gets reelected because he’s VERY pro gun and VERY pro military.   He’s the one who brought the B-2 Bomber to Whiteman AFB which happens to be in his district along with Fort Leonard Wood.   When Skelton voted against the health care bill in Congress, he was voting to represent the will of the people in his district.  As Conservatives, we all applauded him.

 

Now, this one is going to cause me to put my flame suit on.  Congressman Joseph Cao (R) Louisiana is taking a lot of heat from Republicans for supporting the health care bill.   He was the only Republican to do so and allowed Pelosi and Obama to claim bipartisan support by his vote.   Cao represents a district which is heavily Democratic, having won election over corrupt Democrat Congressman William Jefferson.  Being from a district that is overwhelming Democrat and populated with those of the entitlement generation, wasn’t Rep. Cao voting the will of the people who elected him to congress?  As Conservatives, we wanted his head on a platter. 

 

Both of these men voted against their political party but both of them voted the will of the people who elected them to congress.   What was the right thing for them to do?  Vote to support the party they’re members of or vote the will of the people who elected them? 

Comments

[Scott]

They did exactly what they should have done: voted according to the wishes of the people they represent.

There's a school of thought that suggests congress-people are perhaps more "educated about the issues" and so maybe "know more" than their constituents…but that, to me, means they have the obligation to go home to their districts and INFORM their constituents. Hell, I'll even use the word "educate." But, at the end of the day, a representative gov't means that they vote the will of the people.

[John Hampton]

Therefore, I believe the question, in both cases, should be whether or not the congressmen voted the will of their constituents regarding that single issue. Was it apparent that the majority of the people in the respective districts agreed with the way their representatives voted?

You make a good point, Bob, in mentioning the fact that Cao's district is, or probably is, heavily populated by those who would be expected to be in favor of entitlements. I believe Cao's loyalty to his constituents is a higher priority than his loyalty to the GOP. (I am a registered Republican but don't always agree with the party line on certain issues.)

The same applies to Skelton of Missouri. Does his vote reflect the will of the majority of his constituents on the health care bill? Is he catching flak from his constituents or from the party?

It is quite interesting that many more Democrats (39 total) joined him and the Republicans in opposition to the bill as opposed to a single Republican who voted in favor of it. Quite a contrast.

I don't believe any of us really know the answers to those questions. Could we answer the question best by letting the people decide for themselves by informing them (along the line of Scott's idea) and then allowing them to vote on the bill first at the state level? If not, why not?

In my opinion the proposed legislation doesn't even address the real problem with health care. In fact it looks to me like some kind of a Ponzi scheme. The real problems with health care could be dealt with in other ways which the hard core Democrats seem to be adamant about dismissing or ignoring. It appears to me that they are only interested in getting something passed which will give Obama something to place on his resume under his very scant list of actual achievements and which will also provide even more unprecedented power and control to the government over the people and business. That was one of the major preliminary achievments of Hitler and the National Socialists in pre-war Germany. (Sorry, just couldn't help but throw that in.) The vision they share with Pretendent Obama is a scary one.

[John Hampton]

Concerning the health care legislation, I say put it to a referendum. But I know that will never happen since there is no such thing in this country, at least not on the national level. Politicians are scared to death of such a thing.

[John Hampton]

And now there's Blanche Lincoln. Well, she showed her true colors with her announcement today that she will vote for cloture on the health care bilk tonight. Guess that means she's throwing in the towel on the upcoming election in 2010. I believe there actually were some conservatives who had serious thoughts about giving her the thumbs up next year, including myself. But not now. Even if she does try to salvage her political reputation with her constituents by voting vainly against passing it, she's finished. I guess she didn't read that nice letter I wrote her. She can be assured that I will vigorously join the campaign against her. Just goes to show you that it's not what the Democrats say, but what they do that we should concern ourselves with.