wish others would

After some re-reading; do I take it the “jabs” to which you refer are Snow, the “all the people” line, and “under God?”

Is that them?

Well . . .

1. Ya don’t like Snow. So what. Snow’s not your standard of unbiased. So what. He’s not supposed to be “unbiased.” He’s hired to be the president’s spokesman, not to be anything else. The prez certainly doesn’t need your personal approval to hire him. He’s the PRESIDENT’S press secretary. Duh.

2. The president IS president of all the people. That does not mean that all, or even necessarily most, of the people agree with him at any given time. I know you think you should be consulted personally (as should I), but alas, we are not.

3. Gosh, JR, you do remember the words of the pledge!! Is there a point here somewhere??

And I’d point out that NONE of these perceived swipes had anything to do with Kline. Or did you have a brain fart in that regard?

Again: is there a point here anywhere?

On second thought:Perhaps this is a troll of JR. JR’s usually brighter than this. JR doesn’t usually post stuff with this level of stupidity. If so, JR, apologies.

I’d add to JR (the “junior” moniker is appropriate, but I’ll pass), exactly what I wrote before.

“There is no reason not to be civil to those you disagree with. [He]’s a small person, it appears.”

True for the Gov; apparantly true for JR.

What you think both “sides” don’t do it?

Tony Snow as Press Secretary?

“A President of the United States is a President of ALLLLL the people.”?

“…..one nation UNDER GOD!!!”

Good on Kathy for hitting back!

You wrote more than I, but obviously, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Again.

I have similar thoughts. As I said, I think it relates tangentally to this topic.

In my opinion, there’s a complicated calculus, depending on the issue, over the wishes of the electorate vs. the judgement and beliefs of the representative. Each issue must be reviewed on it’s own, but ultimately, the vote is the representatives to cast, not his constituents. He has no moral or legal duty to vote as his constituents want. He certainly should explain his vote, and if his constituents don’t like his voting, they may remove him.

But HE is responsible for the vote, and ultimately the policy that follows, not the constituency.

I guess I’m surprised I didn’t hear a strong swell of “will of the people” arguing that it is the people’s vote, not the representative’s, and that he owes his constituents to faithfully represent their views, not his own. That’s a pleasant surprise.

BTW – the gov’s actions had nothing to do with the “will of the voters.” It was just a petty slap, refusing to do a simple administrative act which the LAW (remember that?) requires. JoCo owes her nothing in their choice; it was their choice to make. She did not have to like it, or endorse it, as the administrative act required no compromise of her principles; she just had to do the administrative details of her job. And out of petty election-year hostility (AFTER the election, mind you), she threw this little tantrum.

There is no reason not to be civil to those you disagree with. She’s a small person, it appears.

In the United States, the form of government which exists is a republic. Thus, although popularly elected (with the exception of the President and Vice President, who are “indirectly elected”), all office holders have an obligation to exercise his or her best judgment on what is best for the city, county, state, country or other political subdivision represented, whether or not this course of action is favored by the constituents. This obligation will, from time to time, doubtlessly place the office holder at odds with the constituency.

To be reelected, then, to the extent the office holder has voted to take one or more courses of action at odds with the position held by the constituency, he or she must be able to show them that his action was indeed in the best interests of the country, or whatever political subdivision thereof represented, notwithstanding the wishes of the constituents. If successful, the office holder is reelected; if not successful, a replacement is chosen by the voters.

Ultimately, it is the voters who decide the “correctness” of the decisions of the office holder. In a perfect world, the voters would be in possession of all information available to the office holder at the time of each controversial decision, as well as an explanation of the process used by the office holder in arriving at his/her decision, so the voters could determine why the decision was made. However, we are not in a perfect world; thus, the voters will most likely reflect the sum of their knowledge, biases, and analysis in casting votes.

This leads me to the conclusion that there is no obligation, moral or otherwise, for an office holder to hew to the opinion of the constituency in making decisions. The office holder is then at peril for being reelected should his constiuents disagree with the decisions made.

I think your second sentence has a typo (since/such?). Evidently, you fail to understand why I mentioned Bill Clinton in the way that I did (and in fact, I am merely following the lead of other posters here who have done this). The Bill Clinton reference, in this case, is simply a way of pointing out that a deflection strategy is going on. Kline and Sebelius are the topics of discussion on this thread. This is how you introduced the topic of Berger:

“Funny that Phillip Brownlee is writing about Phill Kline on something that isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans, while totally ignoring the Sandy Burger story which is far more disturbing and quite frankly more newsworthy than some stupid technical violation of campaign laws.”.”-Chris from Mac Town (earlier post)

In other words, you’re attempting to deflect attention from Kline by drawing attention to Berger on a totally unrelated manner, except that Berger is associated with “the other guys” or the Democrats. This is argument by red herring. It’s also an attempt to go off of the defensive about Kline to going on the offensive about one of the “other side’s” guys. Of course, the problem with this approach is that someone can then point out similarly egregious behavior or presumed behavior on the behalf of Republicans, maybe going back to the Iran/Contra scandal, for instance. But that would simply be one red herring following another (leaving the original topic far, far behind). Discussions about Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton are simply red herrings on a topic about Phill Kline. And if Kline did in fact violate campaign laws, that is hardly appropriate for an Attorney General no matter how egregious Berger’s actions were. Invoking Berger’s actions as worse is hardly a defense of Kline’s actions (assuming he did in fact violate campaign laws).

“But don’t ever let facts get in the way of your hatred for Bush.”-Chris from Mac Town

Uhm, I said nothing about Bush. Your statement about my presumed hatred for Bush amounts to nothing more than projection on your part, probably because you apply a simplistic “my side verses the demo side” viewpoint to any post that contains opinions in opposition to yours. I was responding to your use of Bill Clinton (admittedly inferred by your bringing up Sandy Berger) as an attempt to deflect attention from the topic at hand. Your invoking Bush hatred also indicates that you tend to go for knee jerk standard responses (when confronted with “BILL CLINTON! BILL CLINTON!”–>respond with accusation of mindless Bush bashing) In this case, the knee jerk response was laughably off topic even from your previous post.

“You are so blinded by it, nothing else matters. I pray the scales fall off your eyes someday.”-Chris from Mac Town

More projection. You know nothing about the motivations that moved me to respond to your original post.

BTW, I find it amusing that someone who refers to Clinton as “the swarmy little reprobate” would presume to chide me about being “blinded” by my hatred for Bush. In your case, it may be that your projection concerning my motivations are a case of “like me, but opposite”.

I’ve been saying that all along.

I wonder if there is not a search for hypocrisy potential here…..

If it should be necessary for the Republican governor of that state with the Democratic Senator who is ill to appoint a replacement? SURELY our friends incensed by Gov. Sebelius’s action here will INSIST that a Democrat be appointed?

And to GMC.

There is a quote somewhere. Maybe I will go find it.

Someting like…”A representative of the people owes his constituents not just his industry but his judgement” Something like that.

Well certainly a leader is appointed to lead. But he should measure that license with the will of those who gave it to him.

Kline didn’t do that. The electoral process took care of it. The fringe on the right rebelled. The governor reasserted the voice of the people.

This was a chance for bipartisan support on this, but that takes some forward thinking.

The appointment was an in-your-face gesture from the predominantlly conservative members. It sure ain’t anything else. Is that the way we want our representatives to act? If you do, than your in the right state, cause it just did.

And the guv was correct in both refusing to sign, and stating the boards decision was against the will of the people, who soundly rejected kline. There’s nothing partisan about the whole thing for the simple reason both parties do it. I personally think that shit has got to stop, and when it does happen, the guilty parties should be voted, if not expelled, from office. It’s politics at its worst

This ideological purity is the issue that is fueling the KS GOP civil war. I think the party has marginalized good centrist Republicans – the kind I like to vote for and the candidates that GOP purists like to call RINOs. The KS Democrats have benefitted from this civil war. I expect that it will continue. I think the civil war is a good thing in some ways, and too bad in others.

What Sebelius did is nothing new, nor is what the neocons did. Not too long ago, a republican sheriff opening happened in a northwest county, and the republican powers that be appointed a sheriff that had previously been involved in some shady business. This made the repubs in that county unhappy, but that didn’t stop them. And Sebelius refused to sign off on it there as well. I think the republicans ended up recalling him, but I don’t know if they voted those out who appointed him in the first place.

Yes Ben, I was legal. Was it ethical and the right thing to do given how voters obviously felt about Kline? That is the question raised by this thread.

I think it was rm who said on a different thread maybe _Political Ethics_ by Paul F. Rossell was the world’s shortest book. That would likely be correct regardless of who wrote it.

I thought at the time when I read rm’s post that a contender for the shortest book might be George W. Bush’s _Developing and Implementing Policy_ – it would only be four monosyllabic words long: “Go with your gut.” A follow up book might contain these five words: “I answer to a different father.”

On one hand, we are a representative republic and we rightfully expect our elected officials to honor our wishes as an electing body.

On the other hand, we elect our representatives for their judgment and integrity.

It’s a tough choice.

My position would be that a rep should follow their conscience and deal with the consequences at the next election.

Regardless, it’s a tough choice.

Discuss.

What obligation do office holders hhave to their constituent’s wishes? Aside from basic honesty, following the law, informing their constituents, etc.

Imagine this scenario: Government official truly and believes that course A is the right policy, but his constituents clearly favor course B. Does said official have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to follow the wishes of his constituency, or not? And why?

I am certain officeholders face that circumstance on a regular basis. I have my own views here, but I’m interested in the views of the group. And please think in general terms, not whether an official is likely to be more/less supportive of YOUR position.

Thoughts?

It’s just politics – no need to get excited.

From my perspective, I am glad that Klline is far away from Sedgwick County – for now.