Rep. Massa: I will vote against the interests of my district

[Kid Shelleen]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Kid Shelleen]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[WatchManUSA]

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?”

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Johnny Bravo]

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!!!

[tt11758]

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.