<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16527" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Joe,</DIV>
<DIV>So why do representatives change they way they vote when their phone lines
are lit up with angry constituents?</DIV>
<DIV>Because they realize they are going against will of their
constiuents.</DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>What will congressman X do when it comes time to vote?</DIV>
<DIV>In a real-life version, lets go back to Montana's Jeanette(sp)
Rankin.</DIV>
<DIV>Rankin voted to stay out of WW I, which most Montanans at the time agreed
with.</DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>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)</DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><EM>"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</EM>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From: "Joe Campbell" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To: <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:08 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official
statement</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2>> Kai,<BR>> <BR>> My
criticism of Craig is that he's a hypocrite, not that he's gay. Like you, I
<BR>> don't care what he does in his own bedroom -- although having sex in a
<BR>> men's restroom can hardly be classified as private act! Still, it is
his NOT his <BR>> sexual orientation that bugs me.<BR>> <BR>> This is
why Roger’s comparison with Clinton is faulty. I think that both Clinton and
<BR>> Craig were wrong because they had extramarital affairs and both of them
broke the law, <BR>> though in Clinton's case it had to do with testifying
falsely under oath not the particular <BR>> act he committed (at least I
don't think that extra-marital affairs per se are illegal). That is <BR>>
where the comparison ends! In order for the analogy to be a good one, it would
have had <BR>> to have been the case that Clinton had a record of voting in
favor of legislation that <BR>> prohibited against having sex with big-haired
women! Say what you want about Clinton's <BR>> romp: It did not reveal him as
a hypocrite. None of us learned something new that was <BR>> contrary to the
public, political image that he was presenting.<BR>> <BR>> I disagree with
you that "If the majority stands in opposition to legislation the <BR>>
representative is in favor of, it is the duty of the representative to heed the
will of his/her <BR>> electorate ..." In fact, I find it hard to believe that
you believe this. If it turns out that the <BR>> majority of the people who
voted for Bush wanted him to leave Iraq immediately would <BR>> that be a
reason for doing so? No. Perhaps we should leave Iraq but not for that
reason.<BR>> <BR>> Part of the role of an elected official is to lead and
it is important for a leader to make the <BR>> right decision, not just the
popular one. I think that Craig's voting record, and the fact that <BR>> he
was not vocally against Idaho’s anti-gay marriage amendment, show a history of
<BR>> discrimination against gays (or in the latter case a tolerance for such
discrimination). His <BR>> recent guilty plea makes a prima facie case that
he is a member of the very group that he <BR>> discriminated against. The
fact that he is a lawmaker who has no problem telling other <BR>> gays what
they can and can’t do yet sees no obligation to follow the law himself also
<BR>> reveals him as a hypocrite.<BR>> <BR>> Gary tried to suggest that
there was no reason to think that Craig was a hypocrite. But his <BR>>
argument rested on the assumption that what Craig was against was, as Gary put
it, the <BR>> "pro special rights agenda." But can someone tell me why it is
that the right to marry the <BR>> adult person of your choice is a “special
right”? It doesn’t seem special at all. The fact is <BR>> that you and I and
Gary have the right to marry the adult person of our choice and many <BR>>
gays and lesbians do not. That is discriminatory, pure and simple. And again
this is where <BR>> the comparison with the case of polygamy is faulty. NO
ONE has the right to marry more <BR>> than one person. It isn’t a case where
one group gets to do something that another group <BR>> cannot do.<BR>>
<BR>> Best, Joe<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Kai wrote:<BR>> <BR>> Sue,
<BR>> My apologies, from what I've seen on the list, the issue has been "Is
he or <BR>> isn't he" and he's a hypocrite if he's gay/bi for standing
against legislation <BR>> most of his constituents also disagree with.
(Moscow's political demographic <BR>> does not represent the majority of
Idaho, and as an avowed independent I believe <BR>> I stand in an even
smaller minority than the "blues".) <BR>> It is the duty of our elected
officials to represent the people who elected <BR>> them. If the majority
stands in opposition to legislation the representative is <BR>> in favor of,
it is the duty of the representative to heed the will of his/her <BR>>
electorate and vote as his/her constituents wish. <BR>> Not that this happens
much anymore, but just a thought of how things are <BR>> supposed to work.
<BR>> The sad truth is that most of our elected officials are corrupt, the
ideals our <BR>> founders strived for have been forgotten, ignored or tossed
aside.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT
size=2>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>
<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=2>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>>
=======================================================<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>