Unfortunately, the ‘zeal’ from Pelosi’s leadership (more dictator like) in getting the President’s agenda trumps most of the Dems own political agenda and does possibly counter their own conscience thought. They have been offered so many ‘deals’ and are constantly being pressured to continue to vote blindly supporting Obama that they have lost their original ideals to which they were running on when first elected. The leadership pressure in winning the votes for Obama’s programs is tantamount to any of their own congressional district wishes and will probably mean that some are being thrown under the bus and they do not know it yet. I think we should throw all the representatives out, both republican and democratic , and just start over. Term limits would be a great place to start!!!! I respect Rep. Cao of New Orleans, even though I do not agree with his vote, because he represents one of the significant ‘entitlement’ poor constituent areas and he knew that they cannot help themselves so his vote is in the best interest of people relying on government handouts.

I think we have seen that politicians will do anything to get re-elected, over and over again. The health care “reform” bills do anything BUT reform the system; they make a series of inconsistent and costly changes, no efficiency to be seen. Lots of pet research projects, though. After 30 years in health care policy, I personally think that single payer is the ONLY way we’ll ever get change in this country. The biggest barrier to meaningful change: the cluelessness of our general population and the willingness of the media and politicians to exploit it for their own ends. “Reform” “death panels” “socialized medicine”–no one has any idea what these terms mean but they are used with regularity as if they did have meaning.

Speaker Pelosi knows that this bill is the most important in her career and in the Democrat Party’s history. If it is passed it will secure the Democrat party as the nations premier political party. Regardless of the outcome of the 2010 elections the Democrat party will have established a power base which can only be managed and administered by the extreme leftist authority which created it. If the Democrats should consequently lose the House of Representatives in 2010 it will only be a temporary setback. The Republican’s incompetence in the face of extreme leftist activism supported by a docile sympathetic press influencing an intellectually weak and confused electorate will ensure that their reign is short.

Thank you. Right on the money.

Admittedly, it is the 800 pound gorilla.

Not exactly RE-election, but Henry Clay – slavery

Here’s the problem with this question, though it captures exactly the way elected officials and most of the voters see it. “But some issues are of such magnitude that we would hope a politician with a conscience would sacrifice their electoral survival and “do the right thing” as he or she sees it.”

Our elected officials were not elected to “do the right thing as he or she sees it.” They were elected to represent the will of the residents of their districts and states — period. That’s why it’s called representative democracy. If they vote the will of the people they represent, they shouldn’t have a concern about being reelected.

For most of my adult life, I believed that although politicians are by their nature self-serving, our system provided a check on excess simply by the normal human reaction to praise or scorn provided by the process of running for election.
Not anymore – during the last few months I have become actively involved in trying to influence my congressman against health care reform and against cap & trade legislation. I’ve written letters, faxes, made phone calls, sat down with staff members, even protested in the streets. A staffer told me the calls into the DC office were almost 100% against cap&trade, but he voted for it anyway. I think this can be explained by the fact that the voters are now one of several constituencies, and not the most influential. Party leaders, lobbies, big donors, congressional peers – all have a much greater influence now. Just looking at where my congressman gets his campaign funds is telling. Much of it comes from out of state (certainly out of the district), with large amounts from such influential groups as SEIU and AFL-CIO.
Today’s official probably would like to be loved by the voters for doing the right thing, but it is much more necessary to be loved by the special interests if you want to stay in office.

I think the radical dems in office now intend to stay in office by hook or crook. We have already seen how crooked most of them are by the way they are voting. Most of them think we work for them not them work for us. When you have millions of people telephoning, faxing and protesting against the bills they ignore what their constiuents want and vote the way they want.

They think that ACORN and SEIU will do the work of getting them re-elected! Doesn’t anyone of you see that? Obo wants a One World Order and by getting the health care bill passed he will have the control he wants. He will know exactly where you live, where you work and if you have guns. There is an effort at the UN to ban guns over all the world but I doubt that will go thru.

It has been proven time and time again that if you take a person’s guns away then crime jumps sky high. Look at England, their crime has soared since they did this. So if you think that will solve the gun problem, it will not, only the criminals will have them and/or get them.

Why are half the people who post here insane?

@Slothrop

You are not the only one who thinks that..

You know, desegregation was not particularly popular, but now I think we would cringe at the thought of separate schools, entrances, restrooms, sports teams, hospitals, etc. If congressmen had always voted according to their constituents wishes, we would have taken until when? to abolish it? Hindsight sometimes is the only reward for some brave decisions. So yes, Kevin, sometimes these guys have to just gut it up and do the right thing. And if you read the premise carefully, this could swing either way. What about the Democrat who feels in his heart he or she should vote against the majority? Remember, I come from a state where the conservative Democrats are closet Republicans.

@Jaime Which half?

@Paul I agree that over time the definition has come to mean as you describe it rather than an actual proxy for their constitients. When the nation was young and being a representative or senator was a part time job rather than a way to keep one’s snout in the public trough, they were able to actually prsent the views of their constituents rather than the views of those to whom they are most beholden financially.

@Jaime Agreed, but the devil is one’s definition of the “right” thing. Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt issues like universal health care will be as easy to assess as “right” or “wrong” 40 years from now as is segregation, women’s franchise, etc.

The members of either party who vote aginst their party often lose the financial backing of the politcal machine that got them elected in the first place.

Jeannette Rankin is a wonderful example of someone who voted her conscience. She cast the unpopular vote against war only four days into her term.

One factor that doesn’t seem to be in play in this discussion is the powerful financial incentives involved when lobbies provide the funds “needed” for campaigns. Politics is a growing sector of the economy–but it sadly seems to be one of those sectors that is not especially “productive.” Imagine how different the political landscape would be if political advertising were banned. It’s not as if substantive policy is conveyed in those 30 second mud-slinging spots.

@Peg The problem that I have with single payer is that the single payer appears to be on the verge of bankruptcy. When the inevitable crash comes, and it is inevitable if we accumulate $1 trillion plus deficits for the foreseeable future, the government will look for efficiency in all of its programs. This will mean opiates instead of chemo for certain age groups. It will also mean very long waits for “elective” surgeries such as hip replacements, etc. Meanwhile the politicians will be giving away billions to the financial services sector……

The most startling example of the obverse of the question you pose is that of William Fulbright, an outspoken critic of the Vietnam war from Arkansas, who consistently voted against the important civil rights bills of his era in order to stay in office so he could continue to chair the Foreign Relations Committee–a position from which he could give strong voice to his opposition to the war. Fulbright was clearly no Southern bigot, but he knew that if he voted for the civil rights legislation, he’d be thrown out of office faster than a speeding bullet. Being a supporter of the civil rights bills and an opponent of the war, I still can’t resolve my own ambivalence about his choices.

It is my opinion that this massive “Healthcare Reform” bill actually has nothing at all to do with “healthcare.” Rather it is all about how to accumulate more money from taxpayers and transfer these into the coffers of Washington (in preparation to going global; economically that is). There has been NO successful Washington legislation or bill that relates to accounting or economics (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, Social Security, etc….) so why does anyone even remotely suspect the proposed (hasty-to-pass) “Healthcare” bill which brings about $ 1-Trillion dollars of new tax money will not be misappropriated any differently.

@Kevin
You only have to pat the top of your head to see if there is a foil hat.

I have a wonderful example that I cannot share because it cuts too close to home – remember that I work in the state capital. From the Governor down, its all about contributions and the roll call. In the end a few people did the right thing. This was not an issue which in and of itself would have cost them an election, however it cost them bargaining “chips” which they could not use as leverage elsewhere.

@Jaime Whew! I can feel my hair. Okay, at least the scalp where my hair used to be.

Lots of things in my life are complicated. I would like a health care plan which is simple. [Fat chance, I know.]I am not sure how many of you are familiar with dollar shifting. I work for the state. I go to get a test the hospital says is worth $340. My state insurance says it thinks it is only worth $195. IF you are still with me here, think about this. Where does the extra $145 go. Was it just gravy as the state thinks or if too many state workers get that test, will the hospital go bankrupt? Okay, I do pay part of it, BUT the part I don’t pay, YOU pay. Those of you who have private insurance or no insurance divvy up what is left and add it to you bill the next time you have that test. You never have to worry about the hospital’s profit margin, they are just fine.

THAT is why the older legislator squelched the young legislator in my state when he introduced a bill to allow state workers who go out of the country to be covered in some circumstances. [That would help me, since the co-pays for expensive procedures would be less, and it would help you the tax payer.] The older legislator routinely receives contributions from the hospital lobby. The hospitals didn’t care that the costs got squeezed around to a different sector. But they did care if they were not going to be the ones making the
money.

That is all any of this is. Insurance companies don’t care if your costs are kept under control. They only care if THEIR costs are kept under control. So folks, why do you suppose “the investor class” is opposed to the health care bill? And their lobbyists prevail with our representatives. So what the Congressperson risks losing is not the approval of the electorate so much as the approval of the lobby. The industry can style “advertising” to enhance the political message – THEY control the electorate. It takes allot of guts to buck that. I think maybe the ones who are retiring or choose not to run again are the only ones who can afford to go against the platform as outlined by their respective parties and the companies they represent.

We have a part time legislature. Both of those people are Republicans. Other Republican legislators in his chamber include a pharmacist and an insurance salesman. I don’t think we will ever see that option.

Our culture does not extol “doing the right thing” as much as I think it used to.

“Profiles in Courage,” a book that was required reading when I was in HS in 1963 or so, is an award-winning book that had a wide audience when it was published in 1956. But a contemporary version would be hard to sell (or even to find material for) today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiles_in_Courage

http://www.amazon.com/Profiles-Courage-Perennial-Classics-Fitzgerald/dp/0060955449