Protests In Wisconsin

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

If this is a sound tactic then I suggest anytime a party is in the minority they flee their respective state and deny the chambers they belong to a quorum. Then nothing will be accomplished. Of course, one is elected to serve all the people of ones district/area including those that did not vote for you.

The Republicans should learn from this and use it when they are the minority. Works for me.

Wish the Republicans had used it on the Health Care Bill but then the Democrats would have blasted the minority for shirking their responsibilities to their constituents and would have probably tried to have them arrested.

Oh yeah, I remember that the Texas Eleven were fleeing because of redistricting. That is perfectly excusable as they were protecting their own jobs. In NC the Democrats have controlled both or at least one chamber of Congress for over 110 years. They have controlled the redistricting during all this time. Never once have the Republican members of the Senate or House fled the state to keep the Democrats from drawing new districts. This year the Republicans have both Chambers and will redraw the lines. We will see if the Democrats flee the state. Should be interesting.

So because they are NOT protecting their own jobs and they are protecting the interests of their constituents, this is not acceptable? I'm sorry: I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AOEforme

So because they are NOT protecting their own jobs and they are protecting the interests of their constituents, this is not acceptable? I'm sorry: I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here.

What I am saying is that they are elected to serve all their constituents not just the majority that elected them. This means that they show up for their work at the assigned location and do their job. One does not flee their state because you want to protect your job. IMO this is not an acceptable practice. This goes for anyone who wishes to use this practice whether Republican or Democrat. I was being facetious in my remarks.

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

What I am saying is that they are elected to serve all their constituents not just the majority that elected them. This means that they show up for their work at the assigned location and do their job. One does not flee their state because you want to protect your job. IMO this is not an acceptable practice. This goes for anyone who wishes to use this practice whether Republican or Democrat. I was being facetious in my remarks.

By that count, Republicans voting for the bill should be taking cpnsideration from all those in their constituency protesting, and vote no. Or vote "1/2 no, 1/2 yes".

In addition, showing up to the capitol building is not equal to doing their job. They aren't taking vacationing in Rockford, IL. They are doing their job by blocking the passage of the bill. By "not showing up to work", they have ensured that coverage of the bill will go on longer, and more pressure will be applied to those Republican voters who are wavering on passage of the bill. In addition, this gives more time for negotiation, so perhaps the collective barganing agreements can be changed.

Finally, how does fleeing the state protect their jobs? I'm hoping you are talking about the Texas Eleven here, because there is no way these senators are protecting their jobs by leaving the state. They are making a bold move to try and protect what the constituents desire.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

What I am saying is that they are elected to serve all their constituents not just the majority that elected them.

This is basically the most meaningless statement possible. Besides that, it's simply not true.

They are elected to do what they feel is right - elected officials are only beholden to the public to the extent that they need to reelected. There's a reason why we don't just do a direct poll of each county and have officials vote that way. Saying "they have a responsibility to the minority" is pandering of the highest order, beyond being disingenuous.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

I think it's both, but more the keeping collective bargaining at this point. Reports are that the Governor never even went to the unions for concessions in the first place (which is what some state governors are doing in order to fix their budget crises).

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is basically the most meaningless statement possible. Besides that, it's simply not true.

They are elected to do what they feel is right - elected officials are only beholden to the public to the extent that they need to reelected. There's a reason why we don't just do a direct poll of each county and have officials vote that way. Saying "they have a responsibility to the minority" is pandering of the highest order, beyond being disingenuous.

I'd have to clarify this and say that they have a responsiblity to be sure that the RIGHTS of the minority are being upheld.

However your post makes me think of the musical 1776 - relatively realistically presented - where one representative went back and forth on how to vote, due to his concern over whether he was to represent specifically what his constituents wanted, or whether he was to use his best personal judgment. He fell down on the side of the latter.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'd have to clarify this and say that they have a responsiblity to be sure that the RIGHTS of the minority are being upheld.

Some would argue that's a higher-order Constitutional responsibility, and not specifically owed to a constituent group.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Some would argue that's a higher-order Constitutional responsibility, and not specifically owed to a constituent group.

I'd agree with that group, and I'm well aware it's not what GW was saying. Just felt it important to mention