The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Hazcat on August 17, 2009, 03:29:49 PM
-
interests of my district
By Kerry Picket on Aug. 16, 2009 into Water Cooler
* Subscribe
Representative Eric Massa (D- NY) addressed an intimate group of Netroots activists during their annual Netroots Nation gathering in Pittsburgh this weekend. Mr. Massa reiterated his support for a single payer health care bill. He discussed the risks he takes for wanting to support such a measure in his "right wing Republican district."
According to Swing State Project, Mr. Massa won his 2008 race by two percentage points. The district's voting pattern index (PVI) is a Republican +5 seat. The National Republican Congressional Committee has the upstate New York congressman in their sights for 2010 along with 69 other House Democrats as reported by Politico. The transcript is below, and check out the corresponding video above.
MASSA: I’m not going to vote for 3200 as it’s currently written. Step one, I will vote for a single payer option or a bill that does have a medicare coupled public option, which we don’t have right now. If my town hall meetings turn into the same media frenzies and ridiculousness, because every time that happens we lose. We lose another three million people in America. They see that happening and negate us.
PARTICIPANT: It changes America.
MASSA: Every time that occurs. So what happens in my town hall meetings frankly is important, because I am in one of the most right wing Republican districts in the country, and I’m not asking you guys to go back to wherever and send people to me. This is a generic statement of what can I do? Well that’s one thing we can do.
PARTICIPANT: So if we got your meetings to sixty forty, you’d vote…and there was single payer in a bill you would vote for it?
MASSA: Oh absolutely I would vote for single payer.
PARTICIPANT: If there was sixty forty sentiment in the room?
MASSA: Listen, I tell every audience I’m in favor of single payer.
PARTICIPANT: If there was eighty twenty in the room?
MASSA: If there was a single payer bill?
PARTICIPANT: And there was a single payer….
MASSA: I will vote for the single payer bill.
PARTICIPANT: Even if it meant you were being voted out of office?
MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.
(inaudible participants' comments regarding the "interests" of the district statement from Mr. Massa)
Massa: I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/aug/16/video-rep-massa-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-d/
VIDEO and comments at link
-
It happens everyday. Each politician represents his constituents based on his personal beliefs. You can only hope they vote your way most often.
If you don't like how they vote, vote them out of office (if you can).
-
"Netroots Nation amplifies progressive voices by providing an online and in-person campus for exchanging ideas and learning how to be more effective in using technology to influence the public debate. Through our annual convention and a series of regional salons held throughout the year, we strengthen our community, inspire action and serve as an incubator for ideas that challenge the status quo and ultimately affect change in the public sphere."
So Rep. Massa goes to the Netroots Nation convention and promises this left-wing progressive group that he will support their goals over the people he supposedly represents.
So much for the influence of special interests!
-
I've made my opinion of these treasonous bastards clear, they need to be killed, along with their staffers, their college indoctrinators, their supporters, and the media that drools on their crotch.
-
I've made my opinion of these treasonous bastards clear, they need to be killed, along with their staffers, their college indoctrinators, their supporters, and the media that drools on their crotch.
What exactly do you mean, Tom? ;D
-
I've made my opinion of these treasonous bastards clear, they need to be killed, along with their staffers, their college indoctrinators, their supporters, and the media that drools on their crotch.
What exactly do you mean, Tom? ;D
+1
That'll be quite enough of the 'sugar coating' business, TB...........from now on, say what you mean. ;) ;D
-
+1
That'll be quite enough of the 'sugar coating' business, TB...........from now on, say what you mean. ;) ;D
Lets see if this is blunt enough, Take the entire administration,Congress men, Senators, appointees, staffers, Buroeucratic paper shufflers, 1/2 the Supreme Court, and 90% of the media. Tie their hands and feet and lay them side by side in Pennsylvania Avenue.
Then parade an Armored Division over them.
Got the idea from the Croatians, they were just as set on ethnic cleansing as the Serbs were but could not spare the ammo to shoot their prisoners.
Kind of messy but it would drive the point home to those not squashed that Cuba is very nice this time of year.
-
Dems will fall on the sword by Nov. 2010, even if voted out.... Remember Tom Daschle? He was voted out and originally tapped for the HHS Sec. job by BHO,...
If they can lick the boots of the Dems that are re-elected by the sheeple, even if they lose, they will do so...
I defer to tombogans previous posts,.... >:(
-
Rep. Eric Massa is an arrogant, elitist, Richard cranium.
MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.
So this a$$hole will do whatever he wants because he so much smarter than his constituents. >:(
-
Two points:
1, Massa at least was honest. This is what I will do, this is why, like it or vote me out. Like his view or hate it, you can't say he lied.
2, Its an old debate. Is a Rep an instructed delegate or a trustee? Do they pledge to do what the majority of their district wants, like a lawyer for his client? Or do they say here are my beliefs and why you should trust my judgement? This goes all the way back to the Federalist papers.
FQ13
-
Two points:
1, Massa at least was honest. This is what I will do, this is why, like it or vote me out. Like his view or hate it, you can't say he lied.
2, Its an old debate. Is a Rep an instructed delegate or a trustee? Do they pledge to do what the majority of their district wants, like a lawyer for his client? Or do they say here are my beliefs and why you should trust my judgement? This goes all the way back to the Federalist papers.
FQ13
Excellent points FQ. I still don't like the prig. I'm too black and white with very little gray.
What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. I'm not a fan of rationalization.
A wise Episcopalian priest once answered my question about sin this way:
Father, how do you know if something is a sin when it is not so clear? Why that's easy, he told me. The big ones you know in your heart and your conscience tells you. The others are a little harder but generally if you feel the necessity to rationalize your actions, then it's a sin. That stuck with me and it's made me a black and white guy. You can rationalize almost anything. That don't make it right.
-
I think the guys wrong on this, but at least he's honest. The second question is a lot harder. The Founders did not want the Congress to follow the polls. They wanted people to elect men of charachter to use their best judgement. The idea of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington would have given Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton or Madison apoplexy.They were elitists to a man. Its why only the House was diectly elected and only a third of the indirectly elected Senate was up for reelction each cycle. As Madison said, Elections are a filter, not a mirror. He meant you shouldn't vote for someone just like you, but someone wiser than you that you trusted. Joe the plumber was their nightmare. Agree or disagree, I think Hamilton and Washington would support Massa (not on the issue) but on his decision making process. Jefferson not so much. As I said, its an old debate, but still relevant and there are no easy answers. I'm torn on it myself.
FQ13
-
Defending Massa because, at least he was honest, is a rationalization and therefore 100% wrong in my book.
Electing the guy who is wiser than you, but that you trust is BS and it's more rationalization to support an arrogant fool.
There can be no trust when the representative of the people would vote against the will of the people, even in an 80% to 20% landslide against his opinion. Anyone arrogant enough to believe that he is more wise than 80% of his constituents is a fool that will soon find himself unemployed. In the time of our Founding Fathers, please scratch unemployed and insert lynched.
-
Defending Massa because, at least he was honest, is a rationalization and therefore 100% wrong in my book.
Electing the guy who is wiser than you, but that you trust is BS and it's more rationalization to support an arrogant fool.
There can be no trust when the representative of the people would vote against the will of the people, even in an 80% to 20% landslide against his opinion. Anyone arrogant enough to believe that he is more wise than 80% of his constituents is a fool that will soon find himself unemployed. In the time of our Founding Fathers, please scratch unemployed and insert lynched.
Then consider yourself a populist. I tend to lean slightly that way. However, I do find it hard to argue with Washington and Madison. It boils down to whether you are in favor of a democracy or a republic. There are always trade offs. If the founders wanted the will of the people to always be paramount, the Senate would have been directly elected, and elections woldn't have been staggered. Flip side is, why bother with elections at all if the elected don't follow the popular will? The answer was relatively short terms (2 years) The reason for the conundrum is that sometimes the majority is wrong. How do you deal with that fact?This isn't theory, its a very real real question.
FQ13
-
Just a point, Massa did not say this to the people of his district. He made the statement to a liberal, populist organization Netroots Nation pledging his support of that group’s agenda. This was not a town hall meeting in his district. He was not elected to represent Netroots Nation!
BTW – How did a guy like this get elected from a district that he says is, “one of the most right wing Republican districts in the country?”
-
Then consider yourself a populist. I tend to lean slightly that way. However, I do find it hard to argue with Washington and Madison. It boils down to whether you are in favor of a democracy or a republic. There are always trade offs. If the founders wanted the will of the people to always be paramount, the Senate would have been directly elected, and elections woldn't have been staggered. Flip side is, why bother with elections at all if the elected don't follow the popular will? The answer was relatively short terms (2 years) The reason for the conundrum is that sometimes the majority is wrong. How do you deal with that fact?This isn't theory, its a very real real question.
FQ13
The fact that the majority are wrong quite often is why Hamilton, in "The Federalist" condemns "democracy" with examples of it's Greek failures and how it always led to dictatorship. I think it was Madison who said "The majority ? The majority sir, is an ass."
The way the Founders dealt with that was by giving us , not a Democracy, ruled by the whim of the masses, but a Republic ruled by LAW, The most fundamental balance was struck by strictly limiting and enumerating the powers of the Central (Federal ) Govt. while limiting who was allowed to vote by continuing the "property requirement" for eligibility. In fact, not only did they continue this British practice, at least 2 states (Ma. & S.C. ) INCREASED the amount of property required to be eligible to vote.
The Founders, particularly the Mass. contingent found them selves in an awkward position, they had roused and politicized the "rabble", Tradesmen, small farmers women and blacks, who had previously had no political voice in order to mount street protests and boycotts of English goods, and later to man the Continental Army and State militia's, After the war though they had to try to stuff the Genie back in the bottle in order to retain the support of the moneyed classes who generated jobs and trade and to prevent the mob from voting the proverbial bread and circuses. This position created an even larger dichotomy between what they SAID, and what they DID, than their hypocritical position on slavery which planted the seeds of Civil war with in the very roots of the Constitution.
-
Let's STOP the pussyfoot'n around. This Massa guy is wrong. He needs to lose his job. "I told you I was going to screw you and now I'm going to". Get a rope!!!
-
Let's STOP the pussyfoot'n around. This Massa guy is wrong. He needs to lose his job. "I told you I was going to screw you and now I'm going to". Get a rope!!!
That pretty much sums it up.