So, Arizona passed a bill that would make it a misdemeanor crime to not have your immigration paperwork on you if you're an immigrant in Arizona. It also allows police officers to check into someone's immigration status if they have "reasonable suspicion" to do so.

Now, I'm not judging the bill itself, but the following sentence caught my attention.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 7282.story



Ignore the 'Republican' part, because I don't care about that. It burns my nuts that legislators would be against a bill, but vote for in ANYWAY because of an upcoming election. I'm not naive, I know that this is common and happens all the time at all levels of government. It just sickens me when I see it spelled out like that.

If you think a bill is bad, vote against it. If you think it's good, vote for it. If only it could ever be that simple.

ah, but aren't they elected to express the will of their constituents, not their own personal opinion?

While I generally agree, can't this example also be spun as elected officials doing what their constituents want them to do?
ie "I better vote for this or my ass is getting thrown out."

It is after all representative government.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

*damn you Stuuuu'u's*
beat me to it.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

That's a fair point, and I hope that the justification for voting for/against would be just that, and not the re-election considerations.

I friggin love this. Way to go Arizona, you rock

_________________
"I can't really hear what Jeremy says, because I got my two Stanley Cup Rings plugging my ears...." -Patrick Roy in reference to Jeremy Roenick's trash talking