TexasCHLforum.com

This session brought some questions I've had over the years to forefront in my mind. I do not necessarily have the answers or definitive positions regarding some of them. Still formulating my thoughts around these and would appreciate input from you whatever they are.

I am a person of principle and believe there are many issues that are black and white and to stand up for no matter what. I can also get caught up on principle to the point of my own detriment in certain circumstances. I also believe there are some issues that are up to personal choice based upon one's own beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings. There are many principles in which I agree with the CJ's, Sticklands and Huffines of the world. However, their rhetoric, tactics, methods and timing leaves much to be desired. Here are the questions.

How hard does one stand on principle when in a public office such as the house of representatives or congress, president, governor or lt. governor?

How do you balance principle and compromise?

On what type of issues do you compromise your principle's, if any?

Has Stickland rendered himself politically impotent by standing on his principles ?

Was it his tactics and methods or his principles that made him ineffective?

Or, was he effective by standing so firm on his principles and bringing attention to them?

Does being a statesman require one to comprise his principles?

Is right and wrong relative? If it is, is it always relative or just sometimes?

Does someone have to hold 100% to any ideology or platform in order to be credible? Can one be a credible representative of your constituents if you align with the Libertarians in some areas, Conservative in others and liberals in others? Or does one have to 100% faithful to the platform or ideology of a single group?

Is it acceptable to put party over issue?

Looking forward to any feedback any of you are willing to offer. I also used Stickland as an example because he was so visible and in my mind, he has rendered himself completely ineffective as a legislator but many of his backers are even more enamored with him and consider him their hero and great defender of Liberty.

mojo84 wrote:This session brought some questions I've had over the years to forefront in my mind. I do not necessarily have the answers or definitive positions regarding some of them. Still formulating my thoughts around these and would appreciate input from you whatever they are.

I am a person of principle and believe there are many issues that are black and white and to stand up for no matter what. I can also get caught up on principle to the point of my own detriment in certain circumstances. I also believe there are some issues that are up to personal choice based upon one's own beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings. There are many principles in which I agree with the CJ's, Sticklands and Huffines of the world. However, their rhetoric, tactics, methods and timing leaves much to be desired. Here are the questions.

How hard does one stand on principle when in a public office such as the house of representatives or congress, president, governor or lt. governor?

How do you balance principle and compromise?

On what type of issues do you compromise your principle's, if any?

Has Stickland rendered himself politically impotent by standing on his principles ?



Was it his tactics and methods or his principles that made him ineffective?

Or, was he effective by standing so firm on his principles and bringing attention to them?

Does being a statesman require one to comprise his principles?

Is right and wrong relative? If it is, is it always relative or just sometimes?

Does someone have to hold 100% to any ideology or platform in order to be credible? Can one be a credible representative of your constituents if you align with the Libertarians in some areas, Conservative in others and liberals in others? Or does one have to 100% faithful to the platform or ideology of a single group?

Is it acceptable to put party over issue?

Looking forward to any feedback any of you are willing to offer. I also used Stickland as an example because he was so visible and in my mind, he has rendered himself completely ineffective as a legislator but many of his backers are even more enamored with him and consider him their hero and great defender of Liberty.

I can only tell you of my beliefs on the issues you have stated. I too am a man of principles.

I believe that if I were to run for office, the principles and platforms that I ran on would be my guide and I would stand hard on them because that is what I promised to do. A man is only as good as his word in my book.

As for compromise, not sure I would or could

Although I don't agree with Sticklands tactics, whether he has rendered himself politically impotent or ineffective remains to be seen in the log run. I am not sure what issues he ran on but if he stood by his beliefs and principles totally, then those that voted him in should be happy and vote for him again.

I think that he did bring attention to his issues whether good or bad. I think his biggest problems were he was in the pocket of OCT and OCTC, he is a freshman and has a lot to learn about how to do things and when to keep his mouth shut.

Although I am a registered Republican, there are a very few areas I agree with other parties and would vote that way.

The problem with politics for as far back as I remember, is that there is to much wheeling and dealing going on. (you vote against this and I will vote for that) and they tend to drift away from their principles just to look good.

Just my .02

mojo84 wrote:This session brought some questions I've had over the years to forefront in my mind. I do not necessarily have the answers or definitive positions regarding some of them. Still formulating my thoughts around these and would appreciate input from you whatever they are.

I am a person of principle and believe there are many issues that are black and white and to stand up for no matter what. I can also get caught up on principle to the point of my own detriment in certain circumstances. I also believe there are some issues that are up to personal choice based upon one's own beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings. There are many principles in which I agree with the CJ's, Sticklands and Huffines of the world. However, their rhetoric, tactics, methods and timing leaves much to be desired. Here are the questions.

How hard does one stand on principle when in a public office such as the house of representatives or congress, president, governor or lt. governor?

How do you balance principle and compromise?

On what type of issues do you compromise your principle's, if any?

Has Stickland rendered himself politically impotent by standing on his principles ?

Was it his tactics and methods or his principles that made him ineffective?

Or, was he effective by standing so firm on his principles and bringing attention to them?

Does being a statesman require one to comprise his principles?

Is right and wrong relative? If it is, is it always relative or just sometimes?

Does someone have to hold 100% to any ideology or platform in order to be credible? Can one be a credible representative of your constituents if you align with the Libertarians in some areas, Conservative in others and liberals in others? Or does one have to 100% faithful to the platform or ideology of a single group?

Is it acceptable to put party over issue?

Looking forward to any feedback any of you are willing to offer. I also used Stickland as an example because he was so visible and in my mind, he has rendered himself completely ineffective as a legislator but many of his backers are even more enamored with him and consider him their hero and great defender of Liberty.

My allegorical response to you takes me back to learning how to sail back in the BSA:

I learned how to sail when I worked the summer at Scout Camp. I never sailed again after that course was over, so I don't remember much, but I do remember one thing: you almost never get to take a straight path toward your goal. You have to tack left and right, inching toward your target, getting ever closer. This is especially true when you're fighting a headwind from exactly the direction you want to go. You can still get where you want to go, but the tacks have to be even more extreme in order to overcome the prevailing winds.

If I apply this allegory to the political spectrum, I think it's quite appropriate. I think that it's OK for someone to state their goal, and then state that they will 'tack' toward that goal. If they say, "I'm going that direction, no matter what, and if I don't get it, I'm going to sink this boat", then they're a fool. It just doesn't work that way.

This does not mean compromise on principles, but it does mean take small victories, tack by tack, and then eventually you get what you wanted. Sure, it took longer, but you succeeded. It's a lot better to succeed slowly (read: Cotton approach) than it is to fail immediately and permanently (read: Stickland approach).

State the principles, and always work toward them. If something comes up that flies directly in the face of those principles, then push back. Otherwise, go with the flow a bit to get what you want.

Vol Texan wrote: My allegorical response to you takes me back to learning how to sail back in the BSA:

I learned how to sail when I worked the summer at Scout Camp. I never sailed again after that course was over, so I don't remember much, but I do remember one thing: you almost never get to take a straight path toward your goal. You have to tack left and right, inching toward your target, getting ever closer. This is especially true when you're fighting a headwind from exactly the direction you want to go. You can still get where you want to go, but the tacks have to be even more extreme in order to overcome the prevailing winds.

If I apply this allegory to the political spectrum, I think it's quite appropriate. I think that it's OK for someone to state their goal, and then state that they will 'tack' toward that goal. If they say, "I'm going that direction, no matter what, and if I don't get it, I'm going to sink this boat", then they're a fool. It just doesn't work that way.

This does not mean compromise on principles, but it does mean take small victories, tack by tack, and then eventually you get what you wanted. Sure, it took longer, but you succeeded. It's a lot better to succeed slowly than it is to fail immediately and permanently.

State the principles, and always work toward them. If something comes up that flies directly in the face of those principles, then push back. Otherwise, go with the flow a bit to get what you want.

Excellent comparison!

boomstick wrote:

Vol Texan wrote: My allegorical response to you takes me back to learning how to sail back in the BSA:

I learned how to sail when I worked the summer at Scout Camp. I never sailed again after that course was over, so I don't remember much, but I do remember one thing: you almost never get to take a straight path toward your goal. You have to tack left and right, inching toward your target, getting ever closer. This is especially true when you're fighting a headwind from exactly the direction you want to go. You can still get where you want to go, but the tacks have to be even more extreme in order to overcome the prevailing winds.

If I apply this allegory to the political spectrum, I think it's quite appropriate. I think that it's OK for someone to state their goal, and then state that they will 'tack' toward that goal. If they say, "I'm going that direction, no matter what, and if I don't get it, I'm going to sink this boat", then they're a fool. It just doesn't work that way.

This does not mean compromise on principles, but it does mean take small victories, tack by tack, and then eventually you get what you wanted. Sure, it took longer, but you succeeded. It's a lot better to succeed slowly than it is to fail immediately and permanently.

State the principles, and always work toward them. If something comes up that flies directly in the face of those principles, then push back. Otherwise, go with the flow a bit to get what you want.

Excellent comparison!

Yes it is!
Chas.

Vol Texan wrote: My allegorical response to you takes me back to learning how to sail back in the BSA:

I learned how to sail when I worked the summer at Scout Camp. I never sailed again after that course was over, so I don't remember much, but I do remember one thing: you almost never get to take a straight path toward your goal. You have to tack left and right, inching toward your target, getting ever closer. This is especially true when you're fighting a headwind from exactly the direction you want to go. You can still get where you want to go, but the tacks have to be even more extreme in order to overcome the prevailing winds.

If I apply this allegory to the political spectrum, I think it's quite appropriate. I think that it's OK for someone to state their goal, and then state that they will 'tack' toward that goal. If they say, "I'm going that direction, no matter what, and if I don't get it, I'm going to sink this boat", then they're a fool. It just doesn't work that way.

This does not mean compromise on principles, but it does mean take small victories, tack by tack, and then eventually you get what you wanted. Sure, it took longer, but you succeeded. It's a lot better to succeed slowly (read: Cotton approach) than it is to fail immediately and permanently (read: Stickland approach).

State the principles, and always work toward them. If something comes up that flies directly in the face of those principles, then push back. Otherwise, go with the flow a bit to get what you want.

Quite profound. Go big orange!

Vol Texan wrote:

mojo84 wrote:This session brought some questions I've had over the years to forefront in my mind. I do not necessarily have the answers or definitive positions regarding some of them. Still formulating my thoughts around these and would appreciate input from you whatever they are.

I am a person of principle and believe there are many issues that are black and white and to stand up for no matter what. I can also get caught up on principle to the point of my own detriment in certain circumstances. I also believe there are some issues that are up to personal choice based upon one's own beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings. There are many principles in which I agree with the CJ's, Sticklands and Huffines of the world. However, their rhetoric, tactics, methods and timing leaves much to be desired. Here are the questions.

How hard does one stand on principle when in a public office such as the house of representatives or congress, president, governor or lt. governor?

How do you balance principle and compromise?

On what type of issues do you compromise your principle's, if any?

Has Stickland rendered himself politically impotent by standing on his principles ?

Was it his tactics and methods or his principles that made him ineffective?

Or, was he effective by standing so firm on his principles and bringing attention to them?

Does being a statesman require one to comprise his principles?

Is right and wrong relative? If it is, is it always relative or just sometimes?

Does someone have to hold 100% to any ideology or platform in order to be credible? Can one be a credible representative of your constituents if you align with the Libertarians in some areas, Conservative in others and liberals in others? Or does one have to 100% faithful to the platform or ideology of a single group?

Is it acceptable to put party over issue?

Looking forward to any feedback any of you are willing to offer. I also used Stickland as an example because he was so visible and in my mind, he has rendered himself completely ineffective as a legislator but many of his backers are even more enamored with him and consider him their hero and great defender of Liberty.

My allegorical response to you takes me back to learning how to sail back in the BSA:

I learned how to sail when I worked the summer at Scout Camp. I never sailed again after that course was over, so I don't remember much, but I do remember one thing: you almost never get to take a straight path toward your goal. You have to tack left and right, inching toward your target, getting ever closer. This is especially true when you're fighting a headwind from exactly the direction you want to go. You can still get where you want to go, but the tacks have to be even more extreme in order to overcome the prevailing winds.

If I apply this allegory to the political spectrum, I think it's quite appropriate. I think that it's OK for someone to state their goal, and then state that they will 'tack' toward that goal. If they say, "I'm going that direction, no matter what, and if I don't get it, I'm going to sink this boat", then they're a fool. It just doesn't work that way.

This does not mean compromise on principles, but it does mean take small victories, tack by tack, and then eventually you get what you wanted. Sure, it took longer, but you succeeded. It's a lot better to succeed slowly (read: Cotton approach) than it is to fail immediately and permanently (read: Stickland approach).

State the principles, and always work toward them. If something comes up that flies directly in the face of those principles, then push back. Otherwise, go with the flow a bit to get what you want.

Good stuff. Thanks for the feedback.

Short version: if "compromise" sets you backwards on any of your goals and/or ideals, reject it. However, if it gets you half of what you want, instead of the whole thing, take it, then go for the other half next session. Never accept any compromise that sets you back, but consider each one that that sets you forward, even it it doesn't get you all the way to your end-point.

Example: I am one of those Constitutional-carry proponents. I believe that if you can own it, you should be able to carry it, anywhere and in any fashion, without any government-sponsored "permission slip" required. However, if a previously-banned method or manner of carry is opened up to licensees, I will accept and support it, so long as the ultimate goal of "any gun, any where, any manner" is ultimately worked towards, and hopefully achieved.

Be radical in your ideals, and realistic in your goals. Incrementalism works both ways.

I'll try to answer these one at a time......

mojo84 wrote:How hard does one stand on principle when in a public office such as the house of representatives or congress, president, governor or lt. governor?

This has a two part answer:

1. If you are serving in an elected position, I think you have to remember that while you were elected by the majority, you represent your entire electorate, not just the majority who voted for you. That means that you are morally bound to advance the agenda of the majority which elected you, while still protecting the rights of the minority who did not. An obvious example would be Obama's record on executive orders. He was elected by a majority who are not particularly friendly to the republican form of democratic government, and so he was following their desires with his attempts at bypassing Congress to enact laws. And in doing so, he both denied the rights of representation for those who would oppose his EOs, and he created precedents which will likely permanently poison the relationship between future executives and Congress.
2. Also, it is commonly said that politics is the art of the possible. That translates as, "take what you can get now, take it gratefully, and then plan for the next battle". Open carry is a perfect example. Generally speaking, open carry was possible, but unlicensed open carry turned out not to be possible. (I rather suspect that it would have not been possible even if OCT/OCTC/NAGR/Et al had been kept bound and gagged during the entire silly season, for the simple reason that conservative governments by nature tend not to make sweeping changes.) Intelligent proponents of Constitutional Carry will recognize the passage of HB 910 as a major step forward in the campaign toward the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry........accepting it as that which was possible today, and seeing it as a victory. Stupid proponents of Constitutional Carry will bray like asses that they were betrayed, that all politicians are evil trolls, that HB 910 was a huge loss, and gnash their teeth until 2017 and beyond.

mojo84 wrote:How do you balance principle and compromise?

See #2 above. You advance your interests where you can, recognizing that opposition exists, and your opponents have rights too, which you are constitutionally bound to protect......knowing that, sometimes, protecting/promoting rights and protecting/promoting agenda are not always the same thing. You must be willing to make compromises in your agenda, wherever your agenda would compromise someone else's rights.

mojo84 wrote:On what type of issues do you compromise your principle's, if any?

You never compromise your principles, but you take what you can get. Accepting a less than 100% victory as anything except a victory is idiotic. In WW2, the Axis powers suffered only 17% of all combined military and civilian deaths, and the Allies suffered 83% of all combined military and civilian deaths (SOURCE); and yet only a pinhead would insist that the Allies lost the war.


The point of that graphic is to illustrate that anyone who says that an 80% political victory is actually a loss is like them saying that WW2 was lost because the win wasn't bloodless.

mojo84 wrote:Has Stickland rendered himself politically impotent by standing on his principles ?

Probably. He can try to mend fences, and if he is sincere and actually changes his behavior, he could probably reverse his fortunes and actually get something done. But he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will do that, because he doesn't seem to understand that each representative represents their own district's voters, not his district's voters.

mojo84 wrote:Was it his tactics and methods or his principles that made him ineffective?

Or, was he effective by standing so firm on his principles and bringing attention to them?

His tactics and methods made him ineffective. He could have brought attention to his principles without burning any bridges.... but that is the problem with the "all or nothing" mindset.

mojo84 wrote:Does being a statesman require one to comprise his principles?

Again, this is politics, and politics is the art of the possible. He wasn't elected to be a statesman. He was elected to represent his electorate. Effective representation means pushing your agenda as far as you can, and taking what you can get. Getting something is better than getting nothing.

mojo84 wrote:Is right and wrong relative? If it is, is it always relative or just sometimes?

NO, it is not. I believe in moral absolutes. But we live in a fallen and imperfect world, and we have to contend with people who may disagree with us, and they have rights too. That is why politics is often compared to sausage-making. Again, you get what you can, you accept that a victory isn't always a perfect victory, and you move on.

mojo84 wrote:Does someone have to hold 100% to any ideology or platform in order to be credible? Can one be a credible representative of your constituents if you align with the Libertarians in some areas, Conservative in others and liberals in others? Or does one have to 100% faithful to the platform or ideology of a single group?

Platform and ideology have nearly destroyed the nation. The only "platform" I have any longer is the Constitution. But, I am a realist who understands that he lives in a world full of imperfect people, most of whom never actually sat down and thought through whatever ideology they hold to...... and those people vote too. Sad, but true.

mojo84 wrote:Is it acceptable to put party over issue?

See the above. Platform and ideology have nearly destroyed the nation. I parted ways with the republican party because its leaders put party ahead of the principles for which it claims to stand. I describe myself as a "liberative conservatarian". Suzanna Gratia Hupp famously said:

• "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

  Take that quote, and substitute almost any issue for the words "Second Amendment", and she is right on. Consider this variant:

  "How a politician stands on the NSA's collection of private phone data tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

  I would point out that Rand Paul's stand on getting the NSA's program of domestic spying on private citizens terminated is OPPOSED by prominent republicans like Lindsey Graham. When prominent and powerful republicans WANT you and me to be spied on by government, how can the republican party then claim to support smaller government and greater individual liberty? The fact is, while state and local republicans may feel that way, the national party does not. So why should I support it?

So, placing party over issue is a bad idea. Ask any German who survived WW2.

mojo84 wrote:Looking forward to any feedback any of you are willing to offer. I also used Stickland as an example because he was so visible and in my mind, he has rendered himself completely ineffective as a legislator but many of his backers are even more enamored with him and consider him their hero and great defender of Liberty.

The people who elected him are naive. Did they elect him to be their hero, or did they elect him to effectively represent their interests?

JSThane wrote:Short version: if "compromise" sets you backwards on any of your goals and/or ideals, reject it. However, if it gets you half of what you want, instead of the whole thing, take it, then go for the other half next session. Never accept any compromise that sets you back, but consider each one that that sets you forward, even it it doesn't get you all the way to your end-point.

Example: I am one of those Constitutional-carry proponents. I believe that if you can own it, you should be able to carry it, anywhere and in any fashion, without any government-sponsored "permission slip" required. However, if a previously-banned method or manner of carry is opened up to licensees, I will accept and support it, so long as the ultimate goal of "any gun, any where, any manner" is ultimately worked towards, and hopefully achieved.

Be radical in your ideals, and realistic in your goals. Incrementalism works both ways.

I'm fine with this so long as you don't lose sight of the end goal. And that's a danger in most political systems. I'll use the space program for an illustration (but let's not debate whether or not we should have one in this thread).

Following the successes of the Apollo program, NASA and those that funded it had to answer "what's next?" Many at NASA wanted to keep the ball rolling and start developing a program to take us to Mars. But when the realities of funding set in, the debate was over what interim step could start moving us in that direction (where to compromise). So the Shuttle came about, with the next step being the space station. But then the US space station became the International Space Station (ISS) and it became the end in and of itself. Since the last moon mission, our furthest venture from the surface of our planet wouldn't equal a drive from Houston to Abilene. So the space program is merely a program of going in circles while accomplishing very little. And the space program has lost the magical allure of the space race era. The momentum to continue has been lost and it would take a major event to reverse that. So the compromise position has almost become and end unto itself.

In other words, we need to keep pressing toward our end goal, which to me would be constitutional carry. I think constitutional carry is a bridge too far right now. We should keep pressing for it. But take what gains we can and come back next time and try to move the rock a little more in that direction. But let's not be like Sisyphus pushing the rock and going nowhere.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'll try to answer these one at a time......

The people who elected him are naive. Did they elect him to be their hero, or did they elect him to effectively represent their interests?

TAM, you are the most eloquent writer on this board and I always respect your opinion, however this is the 3rd or 4th time that a poster in these threads has made a derogatory comment about the voters who elected Jonathon Stickland.
I was a resident in the 92nd District during the 2014 campaign when Stickland was seeking re-election. Our choice in the Rep. primary was a rock solid conservative firebrand (Stickland) or a Democratic party plant named Andy Cargile. Cargile was a retired school administrator and trustee who had the full backing of the teachers union. The teachers union encouraged their members to cross over and vote in the Rep primary to try to defeat Stickland. Stickland won over 60% of the vote.

From Wikipedia, In 2013, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, managed in Texas by Cathie Adams, a former state chairman of the Texas Republican Party, rated Stickland 100 percent favorable; the Young Conservatives of Texas, 97 percent. The Texas League of Conservation Voters rated him 38 percent; a similar group Environment Texas rated him 12 percent. The interest group, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, founded by Michael Quinn Sullivan, rated him 100 percent. The National Rifle Association scored Stickland 92 percent

Before we disparage the voters who elected someone we should verify that he was not the better choice.

paperchunker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'll try to answer these one at a time......

The people who elected him are naive. Did they elect him to be their hero, or did they elect him to effectively represent their interests?

TAM, you are the most eloquent writer on this board and I always respect your opinion, however this is the 3rd or 4th time that a poster in these threads has made a derogatory comment about the voters who elected Jonathon Stickland.
I was a resident in the 92nd District during the 2014 campaign when Stickland was seeking re-election. Our choice in the Rep. primary was a rock solid conservative firebrand (Stickland) or a Democratic party plant named Andy Cargile. Cargile was a retired school administrator and trustee who had the full backing of the teachers union. The teachers union encouraged their members to cross over and vote in the Rep primary to try to defeat Stickland. Stickland won over 60% of the vote.

From Wikipedia, In 2013, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, managed in Texas by Cathie Adams, a former state chairman of the Texas Republican Party, rated Stickland 100 percent favorable; the Young Conservatives of Texas, 97 percent. The Texas League of Conservation Voters rated him 38 percent; a similar group Environment Texas rated him 12 percent. The interest group, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, founded by Michael Quinn Sullivan, rated him 100 percent. The National Rifle Association scored Stickland 92 percent

Before we disparage the voters who elected someone we should verify that he was not the better choice.

Reminds me a little bit of a governors election in La where I had to choose between Edwin Edwards and David Duke.

paperchunker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'll try to answer these one at a time......

The people who elected him are naive. Did they elect him to be their hero, or did they elect him to effectively represent their interests?

TAM, you are the most eloquent writer on this board and I always respect your opinion, however this is the 3rd or 4th time that a poster in these threads has made a derogatory comment about the voters who elected Jonathon Stickland.
I was a resident in the 92nd District during the 2014 campaign when Stickland was seeking re-election. Our choice in the Rep. primary was a rock solid conservative firebrand (Stickland) or a Democratic party plant named Andy Cargile. Cargile was a retired school administrator and trustee who had the full backing of the teachers union. The teachers union encouraged their members to cross over and vote in the Rep primary to try to defeat Stickland. Stickland won over 60% of the vote.

From Wikipedia, In 2013, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, managed in Texas by Cathie Adams, a former state chairman of the Texas Republican Party, rated Stickland 100 percent favorable; the Young Conservatives of Texas, 97 percent. The Texas League of Conservation Voters rated him 38 percent; a similar group Environment Texas rated him 12 percent. The interest group, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, founded by Michael Quinn Sullivan, rated him 100 percent. The National Rifle Association scored Stickland 92 percent

Before we disparage the voters who elected someone we should verify that he was not the better choice.

Excellent and important basic point being made here. A body of voters judge candidates on a LOT of things besides their positions on gun issues.

If you were elected because of your, principles, beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings, then that's what you stand on. Personally I think that should only be a small part of what you stand on. You're in office to do what your constituents want not what you as an individual or elected official wants. Morales, and honesty would be the biggies in my opinion. I think an example of this is open carry. Obviously the majority of the constituents wanted open carry but some of the Reps. and Senators let their own feelings into the mix. Some of them forgot about morals and honesty. Whenever I hear a politician use the words, "I think we should," I say, I don't care what you think. What do your constituents think is what I want to hear. When these politicians only care about their own agendas based on their beliefs they no longer represent the people. Most compromise of their principles is political because bottom line is they want to get reelected. A reason I'm for term limits. But that's a different subject. IMHO

Nice post and thought provoking questions Mojo84.

The Wall wrote:If you were elected because of your, principles, beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings, then that's what you stand on. Personally I think that should only be a small part of what you stand on. You're in office to do what your constituents want not what you as an individual or elected official wants. Morales, and honesty would be the biggies in my opinion. I think an example of this is open carry. Obviously the majority of the constituents wanted open carry but some of the Reps. and Senators let their own feelings into the mix. Some of them forgot about morals and honesty. Whenever I hear a politician use the words, "I think we should," I say, I don't care what you think. What do your constituents think is what I want to hear. When these politicians only care about their own agendas based on their beliefs they no longer represent the people. Most compromise of their principles is political because bottom line is they want to get reelected. A reason I'm for term limits. But that's a different subject. IMHO

Nice post and thought provoking questions Mojo84.

I also don't think "majority of constituents want it" should be the driver of political change. As was said earlier, an elected official's responsibility is to represent their constituency, while protecting the rights of the minority. If a bill would infringe on the rights of even one person, in a district the person did not represent, then I don't care if 100% of the person's constituency favored the bill, I believe they should vote against it. If a majority of Texas constituents favored gun control, I still would not believe that should be favored politically.