Schumer's Questions for Roberts

Originally posted by Delmer
I have no yes or no answer for that question, Kevin. I am not sure how a senator would even know his state's views. I would hope that a senator with integrity would represent views that he feels are in the best interest of the USA and honestly feel that those views are also in the best interest of his particular state. I would hope that no senator puts the w ...[text shortened]... reaction because he is a Democrat. Lieberman, for example, does not impress me that way at all.

Long ago as an undergrad Poly Sci major I participated in debates as to whether an elected representative should just vote his conscience or whether he should just follow the views of the people who elect him. I tend to think the former, but there are arguments for the latter. It's funny that you would give Lieberman as the example of someone who doesn't place his political career above other things; unlike Schumer, he did run for President. Also he takes a lot of money from insurance companies and then campaigns to limit monetary recoveries for people injured by negligence and malpractice. I don't find Lieberman a particulary honest or laudatory public servant. Schumer whatever his faults, is a pretty good reflection of mainstream New York and I'm unaware of any personal corruption but if you have some dirt on him, please share.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Long ago as an undergrad Poly Sci major I participated in debates as to whether an elected representative should just vote his conscience or whether he should just follow the views of the people who elect him. I tend to think the former, but there are arguments for the latter. It's funny that you would give Lieberman as the example of someone wh ...[text shortened]... York and I'm unaware of any personal corruption but if you have some dirt on him, please share.

I tried to make it very clear, Kevin, that I was simply expressing my personal opinions formed from seeing and hearing these political strangers on TV and radio. If I had to choose between Schumer and Lieberman, I'd choose Lieberman. If I had to choose between Schumer, Lieberman and a tree, I'd choose the tree.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Long ago as an undergrad Poly Sci major I participated in debates as to whether an elected representative should just vote his conscience or whether he should just follow the views of the people who elect him. I tend to think th ...[text shortened]... ersonal corruption but if you have some dirt on him, please share.

I believe elected reps should vote their conscience. It doesn't seem practical to me for a rep to try and figure out the views of his electorate, which are bound to be contridictory and no doubt a fair percentage will also be ill informed about issues. What's more I think it would be very difficult to defend one's votes if they were based upon a desire to please the voters.

Originally posted by Delmer
I believe elected reps should vote their conscience. It doesn't seem practical to me for a rep to try and figure out the views of his electorate, which are bound to be contridictory and no doubt a fair percentage will also be ill informed a ...[text shortened]... e's votes if they were based upon a desire to please the voters.

The idea that elected representatives would attempt to express (through debates, hearings, and votes) the views of their constituencies in our republican form of government is rather close to a fundamental principle of our governement. The only question is the relative degree of one's personal conscience relative to data (not only polls, but letters received, conversations, local newspapers, lobbyists from key district businesses and interest groups) reflecting the concerns of voters that put him or her in office.

It matters little what the Senators from Montana think about guns, for example. Proposing laws that infringe upon the practices of hunting would seem a breach of public trust.

George Nethercutt accomplished the near impossible in 1992: he unseated the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley. Foley's vote for an anti-gun bill was decisive. He voted his conscience in opposition a substantial block of voters in his district (eastern Washington). It cost him his seat, and cost his district considerable political power.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The idea that elected representatives would attempt to express (through debates, hearings, and votes) the views of their constituencies in our republican form of government is rather close to a fundamental principle of our governement. The only question is the relative degree of one's personal conscience relative to data (not only polls, but letters receive ...[text shortened]... (eastern Washington). It cost him his seat, and cost his district considerable political power.

And therein lies the catch for all politicians. Do they vote in a manner they believe will help keep them in office, or do they vote for what they truly believe is right? And which one would we do?