Rep. Massa: I will vote against the interests of my district

[stevieb92]

Not sure if this was posted here before (under fair use of course)...

I would be willing to bet that almost every Congress critter feels the same way, but at least none have come right out and said it. This Rep is representing his constituents, and blatantly disregards their collective opinion to vote his own. Clearly, he doesn't understand the job description of the position he was elected to. What an arrogant fool.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...nterests-my-d/

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) addressed an intimate group of Netroots activists during their annual Netroots Nation gathering in Pittsburgh this weekend. Mr. Massa reiterated his support for a single-payer health care bill. He discussed the risks he takes for wanting to support such a measure in his "right-wing Republican district."

According to Swing State Project, Mr. Massa won his 2008 race by 2 percentage points. The district's voting pattern index (PVI) is a Republican +5 seat. The National Republican Congressional Committee has the upstate New York congressman in their sights for 2010 along with 69 other House Democrats as reported by Politico. The transcript is below, and check out the corresponding video above.

MASSA: I’m not going to vote for 3200 as it’s currently written. Step one, I will vote for a single payer option or a bill that does have a medicare coupled public option, which we don’t have right now. If my town hall meetings turn into the same media frenzies and ridiculousness, because every time that happens we lose. We lose another three million people in America. They see that happening and negate us.

PARTICIPANT: It changes America.

MASSA: Every time that occurs. So what happens in my town hall meetings frankly is important, because I am in one of the most right wing Republican districts in the country, and I’m not asking you guys to go back to wherever and send people to me. This is a generic statement of what can I do? Well that’s one thing we can do.

PARTICIPANT: So if we got your meetings to sixty forty, you’d vote…and there was single payer in a bill you would vote for it?

MASSA: Oh absolutely I would vote for single payer.

PARTICIPANT: If there was sixty forty sentiment in the room?

MASSA: Listen, I tell every audience I’m in favor of single payer.

PARTICIPANT: If there was eighty twenty in the room?

MASSA: If there was a single payer bill?

PARTICIPANT: And there was a single payer….

MASSA: I will vote for the single payer bill.

PARTICIPANT: Even if it meant you were being voted out of office?

MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.

(inaudible participants' comments regarding the "interests" of the district statement from Mr. Massa)

Massa: I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.

[Skeptic]

Oh come now, you proles don't know what is good for you. Now sit back and let your betters decide what is best for you.

[GunLawyer001]

To be fair, we don't send people to Congress just so that they can vote the way the latest poll says we would vote, they are SUPPOSED to put the time in to get a deeper understanding of the issues.

In states like California, they have a lot more direct involvement, because the voters have all those Propositions. What's happened is that they vote by referendum to freeze taxes and spend more, then leave it up to the politicians to clean up the mess. Because that doesn't work, you can't impose mandates without the means to carry them out.

Personally, I see that the "public option" for health care is just more unworkable socialism, so it's a bad call. But the principle that a Congressman should vote for the right law, not the most popular one, is sound.

[pyld]

Personally, I see that the "public option" for health care is just more unworkable socialism, so it's a bad call. But the principle that a Congressman should vote for the right law, not the most popular one, is sound.

Not only that, but my take on what was posted was that he recognized the electoral consequences of what he's doing. That's how it's supposed to work.

[CarolinaGuy]

Massa: I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.

"I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. "
-Dick Cheney

Isn't this EXACTLY what Cheney meant by not swaying with public polling?

Or is it ok when republicans do it?

[tommy610]

Or is it ok when republicans do it?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. :-)

[NikeBauer21]

"I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. "
-Dick Cheney

Isn't this EXACTLY what Cheney meant by not swaying with public polling?

Or is it ok when republicans do it?

Last time I checked, this is 2009, and Dicky isn't in office anymore. This is now..

[Eugene V. Debs]

To be fair, we don't send people to Congress just so that they can vote the way the latest poll says we would vote, they are SUPPOSED to put the time in to get a deeper understanding of the issues.

In states like California, they have a lot more direct involvement, because the voters have all those Propositions. What's happened is that they vote by referendum to freeze taxes and spend more, then leave it up to the politicians to clean up the mess. Because that doesn't work, you can't impose mandates without the means to carry them out.

Personally, I see that the "public option" for health care is just more unworkable socialism, so it's a bad call. But the principle that a Congressman should vote for the right law, not the most popular one, is sound.

Oh yeah, you got some rep for this alright.

Voting for a law based on principle is leadership, voting for a law you oppose on principle simply because of the latest opinion polls is "followership", and, in theory at least, we vote for representatives to be leaders not followers, even if they are generally supposed to be representing the will of those who elected them. If those who elected them don't like their leadership, they can vote them out.

It is only when representatives vote against the will of the people based on personal interest rather than principle (e.g. Company Y uses its influence to get you to vote against Bill X) that voting against the will of the people becomes patently unethical. Governing through opinion polls is part of what's been fucking up this country so bad over the last few decades.

[Skeptic]

"I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. "
-Dick Cheney

Isn't this EXACTLY what Cheney meant by not swaying with public polling?

Or is it ok when republicans do it?

1) Totally different jobs. One is a member of the House of REPRESENTATIVES. He is there to directly represent his constituents. The other was a VP. Different branches of government with different functions and outlooks. Just as Joe Biden put it to supporters last year the President's approval numbers me tumble but stick with him.

2) This is not a public opinion poll, this is his constituents taking the time to show up and tell him what they want. If he doesn't care what they want, why bother to even have the townhall ?

[CarolinaGuy]

Last time I checked, this is 2009, and Dicky isn't in office anymore. This is now..

So what? Is there some kind of expiration date whenever it becomes inconvenient? I think not.

1) Totally different jobs. One is a member of the House of REPRESENTATIVES. He is there to directly represent his constituents. The other was a VP. Different branches of government with different functions and outlooks. Just as Joe Biden put it to supporters last year the President's approval numbers me tumble but stick with him.

2) This is not a public opinion poll, this is his constituents taking the time to show up and tell him what they want. If he doesn't care what they want, why bother to even have the townhall ?

Exactly. He represents their best interests...NOT their opinions. You almost get it...but then not.