Senators are elected to represent what we as citizens want and believe. We do not elect them because of what they believe as individuals unless it’s in line with what we elected them for. All their decisions are to represent us, not themselves as individuals. We elect them because of their party and how they will represent us. Kyrsten Sinema does not have the moral right to change her thinking after we voted for her to represent us. It’s time we get this right, elected government officials are there to represent the citizens that elected them not themselves.
Robert wrote the same for an entry in the SF Chronicle. He clearly did not listen to the argument that the senator provided. Robert's point is exactly opposite of what she is trying to represent. Oh well, credibility has never been his forte.
Great response, Dirk, I’d recommend Mr. Nice read Ms. Sinema’s op-ed on why she decided to change party affiliation. Some would say the Democrat party left her. As per Ray’s comment below that Sinema will vote overwhelmingly in favor of Dem party positions, that statement is likely to remain true, but at least Sinema has now made her position clear to Dems that she may not vote for their party positions and they shouldn’t necessarily bank her vote.
Kyrsten Sinema's decision to register as an Arizona Independent does not really change anything in DC. However, I'm a little confused about your references to how Sinema was elected to represent "us." Sen. Sinema was not elected to represent the Democratic Party; she was elected to represent Arizonans. With respect to her decision, she said, "I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington and formally registering as an Arizona Independent." Can you explain how she has no "moral right" to represent her constituents in this way?
Kyrsten will still vote overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic Party positions but on issues like massive spending bills and the border, she will choose the path that represents the views of folks who sent her to the Senate. Unlike the other two Senate Independents, Bernie Sanders (VT-I) and Angus King (ME-I), she will not join the Senate's Democratic Party caucus... neither will she caucus with Republicans.
I am reminded of another Arizona senator who broke ranks with his party and acted independently on occasion. When Senator John McCain (AZ-R) did not join other Republicans on an issue, I don't remember the left criticizing such decisions. So, why the indignation when Kyrsten is going maverick?
Switching from sports to politics... Can you explain why Kyrsten should represent "us" in the Senate instead of Arizonans, and why she has no "moral right" to represent her constituents in a way that reflects the views of the folks who sent her to the Senate?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
Robert wrote the same for an entry in the SF Chronicle. He clearly did not listen to the argument that the senator provided. Robert's point is exactly opposite of what she is trying to represent. Oh well, credibility has never been his forte.
Great response, Dirk, I’d recommend Mr. Nice read Ms. Sinema’s op-ed on why she decided to change party affiliation. Some would say the Democrat party left her. As per Ray’s comment below that Sinema will vote overwhelmingly in favor of Dem party positions, that statement is likely to remain true, but at least Sinema has now made her position clear to Dems that she may not vote for their party positions and they shouldn’t necessarily bank her vote.
Hello, Robert
Kyrsten Sinema's decision to register as an Arizona Independent does not really change anything in DC. However, I'm a little confused about your references to how Sinema was elected to represent "us." Sen. Sinema was not elected to represent the Democratic Party; she was elected to represent Arizonans. With respect to her decision, she said, "I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington and formally registering as an Arizona Independent." Can you explain how she has no "moral right" to represent her constituents in this way?
Kyrsten will still vote overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic Party positions but on issues like massive spending bills and the border, she will choose the path that represents the views of folks who sent her to the Senate. Unlike the other two Senate Independents, Bernie Sanders (VT-I) and Angus King (ME-I), she will not join the Senate's Democratic Party caucus... neither will she caucus with Republicans.
I am reminded of another Arizona senator who broke ranks with his party and acted independently on occasion. When Senator John McCain (AZ-R) did not join other Republicans on an issue, I don't remember the left criticizing such decisions. So, why the indignation when Kyrsten is going maverick?
Nice post Bob.
PS Carlisle drive misses your Advocacy.
Hello, Mike
Switching from sports to politics... Can you explain why Kyrsten should represent "us" in the Senate instead of Arizonans, and why she has no "moral right" to represent her constituents in a way that reflects the views of the folks who sent her to the Senate?
Actually I agree whole heartedly with this person.
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/users/profile/Ray%20Fowler
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.