[Joe Demko]

The moral kind, not the criminal kind. :)

Peripheral discussion in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=115999) was just getting interesting when threadlock set in. What do you think? Do we want politicians who have convictions and act on them or do we want politicians who do the bidding of their constituents even when it conflicts with their peersonal convictions?

[Art Eatman]

Well, now, you gonna tell me that Sen. Feinstein doesn't have convictions?

I imagine it's best if politicians stay within rational moral principles as commonly accepted, insofar as things like greed and lying are concerned. But the decision-making process they use should recognize and accept facts as facts. Facts have no moral value; they just sit there and stare at you.

Seems to me it's when decisions derive from opinion polls--with an eye on re-election--and facts are ignored, that conflicts arise.

One problem, IMO, is that much of the public has an equal distaste for fact as do politicians.

TANSTAAFL...

Art

[Joe Demko]

It seems to me that what most people who have even bothered to think about it want could be phrased as "I want a politician who has the courage of his convictions so long as those convictions coincide with mine. When they don't, I want him to do what I want him to do."

[Greg L]

I wouldn't mind seeing the criminal kind on the majority of them ;) :D .

I would prefer that mine have the moral conviction to do what they know is right/what their constituents elected them to do even when if goes against the way that the party leadership is demanding that they vote. My (retired in a month) D-Rep was one of the very few D's that voted to impeach Clinton. While I don't agree with other things that he has done (but to be honest he is much more conservative than most of the RINOs that infest DC) he does have my respect for standing up to the party & doing what needed to be done.

Greg

[SMMAssociates]

Having one former Congressman in jail right now, and a former County Sheriff in another jail, I'm all for convictions.... :neener:

Seriously, of course, I want my elected representatives to share my views and convictions. I'm enough of a realist to assume that they may temper their attitudes with more of the "what's possible" than I might.

If I'm a strong RKBA supporter, I'd definitly not prefer a RINO in the legislature. OTOH, locally, we had a Democrat who turned Republican in order to get back at the incumbent in the last election. Mixed emotions....

I expect these guys to want what I want, and to know how to get it. I would hope that they were honest, or at least would stay bought so we'd know where they stand. Listening to The Poodle reminded me of what I don't want in any politician.

But, let's not forget, when you ask a politician his favorite color, you may get "Plaid" as an answer.... :what:

[lee n. field]

I don't much care as long as they're humbled, fearful and powerless.

[wasrjoe]

Consistant and open posistions on issues is a good start. I hate Feinstein. She is consistantly an enemy of freedom. The people who elect her know her positions. She is not fooling anyone like a RINO. It saddens me that she is elected, but those who elected her knew what they were getting. Sadly, I thought the Bill of Rights was supposed to protect us from the infringements that she so enjoys, but that's another story.

In effect, yes. I do like convictions. I also can appreciate a sincere change of mind when it is motivated by growth rather than a want for votes. Judging which is which is also another story.

[LoneStranger]

When you throw in the propensity of legislators, particuarly Federal, to vote without reading the law they are getting ready to vote on I would settle for knowing who tells them how to vote.

[SMMAssociates]

When you throw in the propensity of legislators, particuarly Federal, to vote without reading the law they are getting ready to vote on I would settle for knowing who tells them how to vote. Which leads to the real question, I think:

Why are these bills so thick in the first place?

I don't think we dare the Line Item Veto, but perhaps the world would be better off if non-pertinent riders would be eliminated?

And amendments held to topic, too....

What we have now is largely defined by the views of congressional aides. Kinda like letting Hillary talk.... :fire:

[RealGun]

"Convictions" are fine as long as they are supported by or are based upon the Constitution. The conviction to understand and stand by the oath to "uphold and defend" would suit me fine. What scares me are supposedly strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment who are also moralist fanatics. I don't trust how their minds work. It seems to me that they pick and choose which principles suit them. ACLU, same thing, different issues.

[RevDisk]

Moral convictions? Sure. I don't care if my elected representative has Christian morals, Satanic (or the politically correct "Lucifierian") morals, athiest morals, agnostic morals, whatever. So long as they vote within the Constitution, Bill of Rights and generally try not to steal too much of our treasury, I'll deal with whatever religious issues they have.

People seem to forget one thing. The Bill of Rights is not giving you any rights. It's outlining rights you were born with. It does not claim to be an all-inclusive list either. We live in a Republic. 51% vote of the people is not sufficient to take away freedom you were born with. The majority can pass laws, try to make trouble for the minority (whatever it is), and do their best to make life as horrible as possible. But, they can't take away the freedom you were born with. They can only punish you for exercising them. Only the individual can give up their freedom. Usually they do so for trinkets or illusions of safety.

[Atticus]

I'd be satisfied with common sense. Everything else seems to fall in place if they have that. Like it or not, they are called upon to represent the concerns and views of their constituents.