From the Office of John Garamendi (House CA-10) re Magazines/HR 308

[safewaysecurity]

I've been shooting with the Garamendi's (John included) on their ranch in Calaveras County. Let me just say "hypocrite" and leave it at that.

I find this very interesting. Sounds like him a DeLeon would have a great time together.

[tackdriver]

a hypocrite polictican...surprise, surprise!!!

I think he's forgotten who his employer is. He needs to REPRESENT his constituents. Thats the problem with knucklehead politicians, they think once they get in office, they don't have to listen to us anymore. Garamandi is just a trolling tool!!! Here's what goes on in his mind. . . . How do I stay publically employed, I know run for every office under the sun and train wreck everyone of them.

Time to break our the pitchforks!!!

Yup, if this dip represents anyone here they should send him his quote and remind him of the stupidity of his statement. I "represent my constiuents" but I will do whatever the hell I, and my fellow dumbOcrats, want...

[Dreaded Claymore]

I think he's forgotten who his employer is. He needs to REPRESENT his constituents. Thats the problem with knucklehead politicians, they think once they get in office, they don't have to listen to us anymore.

Trick is, the argument can be made that once in office, politicians have a duty to do what (they think) is right, regardless of what their constituents want. If I'm a representative from Alabama, don't I have a duty to vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act even though the people I represent would prefer that blacks be slaves?

(Of course, even though he thinks it's right, Garamendi is actually doing wrong, and I'm going to vote against him.)

[tackdriver]

Hmmmm

Trick is, the argument can be made that once in office, politicians have a duty to do what (they think) is right, regardless of what their constituents want. If I'm a representative from Alabama, don't I have a duty to vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act even though the people I represent would prefer that blacks be slaves?

(Of course, even though he thinks it's right, Garamendi is actually doing wrong, and I'm going to vote against him.)

Whoa. Actually it's (should be) just the opposite of what you propose. Regardless of what the politicians own beliefs may be, he is there to enforce the desires of those who elected him. Hence the name "represenative"...
Sadly, your interpretation is what is currently in use.
Regarding this situation with the stumble bum politician this thread is discussing, it would be interesting if one could find out how many calls he got for the mag limitation vs those against. Bet ya a dollar to a doughnut he got more against and still voted for his personnel agenda.....