[Vision2020] Craig's official statement

[Kai Eiselein, editor]

Joe,
So why do representatives change they way they vote when their phone lines are lit up with angry constituents?
Because they realize they are going against will of their constiuents.
Lets say congressman X is a non-hunting vegan. X represents a constiuency with a large number of hunters. A piece of legislation comes about to ban hunting.
What will congressman X do when it comes time to vote?
In a real-life version, lets go back to Montana's Jeanette(sp) Rankin.
Rankin voted to stay out of WW I, which most Montanans at the time agreed with.
Rankin was the lone vote to stay out of WW II and suffered the consequences. She was elected, in part, because she believed in neutrality. After the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, the attitude of those she represented changed, dramaticaly. She did not obey the will of her constiuency, instead chose to stay with her own ideal and paid for it.
Although history has cast a warmer glow on her, Rankin was still wrong to go against what her state wanted. History bears this out. (We Montanans admire her chutzpa, though)
I understand there are times when representatives will not and should not go with what their constituency wants. The majority of voters in Idaho (again pointing out that Moscow does not represent the political demographic of the state) oppose gay marriage. Had he supported it, I believe he- A: Would not have been elected or B: Would have been recalled.
"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement


> Kai,
> 
> My criticism of Craig is that he's a hypocrite, not that he's gay. Like you, I 
> don't care what he does in his own bedroom -- although having sex in a 
> men's restroom can hardly be classified as private act! Still, it is his NOT his 
> sexual orientation that bugs me.
> 
> This is why Roger’s comparison with Clinton is faulty. I think that both Clinton and 
> Craig were wrong because they had extramarital affairs and both of them broke the law, 
> though in Clinton's case it had to do with testifying falsely under oath not the particular 
> act he committed (at least I don't think that extra-marital affairs per se are illegal). That is 
> where the comparison ends! In order for the analogy to be a good one, it would have had 
> to have been the case that Clinton had a record of voting in favor of legislation that 
> prohibited against having sex with big-haired women! Say what you want about Clinton's 
> romp: It did not reveal him as a hypocrite. None of us learned something new that was 
> contrary to the public, political image that he was presenting.
> 
> I disagree with you that "If the majority stands in opposition to legislation the 
> representative is in favor of, it is the duty of the representative to heed the will of his/her 
> electorate ..." In fact, I find it hard to believe that you believe this. If it turns out that the 
> majority of the people who voted for Bush wanted him to leave Iraq immediately would 
> that be a reason for doing so? No. Perhaps we should leave Iraq but not for that reason.
> 
> Part of the role of an elected official is to lead and it is important for a leader to make the 
> right decision, not just the popular one. I think that Craig's voting record, and the fact that 
> he was not vocally against Idaho’s anti-gay marriage amendment, show a history of 
> discrimination against gays (or in the latter case a tolerance for such discrimination). His 
> recent guilty plea makes a prima facie case that he is a member of the very group that he 
> discriminated against. The fact that he is a lawmaker who has no problem telling other 
> gays what they can and can’t do yet sees no obligation to follow the law himself also 
> reveals him as a hypocrite.
> 
> Gary tried to suggest that there was no reason to think that Craig was a hypocrite. But his 
> argument rested on the assumption that what Craig was against was, as Gary put it, the 
> "pro special rights agenda." But can someone tell me why it is that the right to marry the 
> adult person of your choice is a “special right”? It doesn’t seem special at all. The fact is 
> that you and I and Gary have the right to marry the adult person of our choice and many 
> gays and lesbians do not. That is discriminatory, pure and simple. And again this is where 
> the comparison with the case of polygamy is faulty. NO ONE has the right to marry more 
> than one person. It isn’t a case where one group gets to do something that another group 
> cannot do.
> 
> Best, Joe
> 
> 
> Kai wrote:
> 
> Sue, 
> My apologies, from what I've seen on the list, the issue has been "Is he or 
> isn't he" and he's a hypocrite if he's gay/bi for standing against legislation 
> most of his constituents also disagree with. (Moscow's political demographic 
> does not represent the majority of Idaho, and as an avowed independent I believe 
> I stand in an even smaller minority than the "blues".) 
> It is the duty of our elected officials to represent the people who elected 
> them. If the majority stands in opposition to legislation the representative is 
> in favor of, it is the duty of the representative to heed the will of his/her 
> electorate and vote as his/her constituents wish. 
> Not that this happens much anymore, but just a thought of how things are 
> supposed to work. 
> The sad truth is that most of our elected officials are corrupt, the ideals our 
> founders strived for have been forgotten, ignored or tossed aside.
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070830/3845f5e1/attachment-0001.html