How will Harry Reid vote on the amendment?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

That will be interesting. I hope he votes against it, for the simple reason of the debate that will ensue.

You will have the mullahs argue that he should be exed or disfellowshipped, or publically censured. You will have the ultra-liberals celebrating. And you will have varied opinions in between.

I certainly would be terribly disappointed if the mullahs got their way. And if it did happen, and became a huge fiasco, I think that spells doom for Romney.

OTOH, if nothing happens to Reid (which is what I expect will happen), Romney can use this as an example of LDS politicians not being beholden to LDS leaders.

Too bad I can't post this on cougarboard. I could have fun with this one.

I think Reid's vote will have tremendous ramifications for Romney's campaign. If Reid votes for the amendment, it will be almost impossible for Romney to say he could go against the church (since the minority leader couldn't do it even when the position was completely opposed to the position of his party).

This could be extremely interesting. My guess is that he will vote against the amendment and not feel even a little bad about it (as he shouldn't).

[Archaea]

My guess is he will try to find a way not to have to vote.

IF he votes, he will possibly vote against, but he will feel bad about it. He usually has supported things the Church feels strongly about.

So if the Church makes a recommendation and you disagree, you have NO disconnect?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My guess is he will try to find a way not to have to vote.

IF he votes, he will possibly vote against, but he will feel bad about it. He usually has supported things the Church feels strongly about.

So if the Church makes a recommendation and you disagree, you have NO disconnect?

Exactly. There is no disconnect. Why? Because it is a RECOMMENDATION. FWIW, the letter didn't state which way Senators should vote (nor did it state which position the letter writers should take; it did ask for a letter to be written, that is all).

If you think he will find a way not to vote, I think you are crazy. He is the minority leader, and this is the last gasp Republicans have before the fall elections. He will HAVE to be a leader on this issue. There is no chance the minority leader excuses himself from voting on this topic, IMO.

[Archaea]

You may be correct, but these "leaders" are not true leaders, so if there is a technical snafoo he can use to avoid a vote or not vote, he will find it.

OTH, you may be surprised that he might vote in favor of it.

I find it disengenuous if you believe the Church doesn't expect those finding the Church position reasonable that the Church doesn't want people to vote in favor of the amendment.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Funny you'd mention Yale. I heard from an Institute teacher up there that for a large chunk of the 80's, not one LDS female student at Yale retained her membership in the church.

Huzzah for different POV's!

I find that very difficult to believe. But hey, if an institute teacher said it...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I find it disengenuous if you believe the Church doesn't expect those finding the Church position reasonable that the Church doesn't want people to vote in favor of the amendment.

But therein is the rub: what makes you think he views the church position as being reasonable? I am a church member, and I most certainly do not view it as being reasonable.

[danimal]

I'm guessing Reid will vote against it. The Church won't do anything about it. They care some about how he votes but they're classy enough to stay out of it. I read an interview with some LDS politicians and they said the church never contacts them about voting on anything.

[shobeewan]

As a Senator his job is to represent the people who sent him. If his constituents (sp?) want him to vote a certain way, that is the way he should vote regardless of his personal feelings. A Senator is employed by those who voted for him as their voice in congress. His personal feelings should be a very small part of his decision. The Church has broadcast its position on the matter and asked the members to appeal to those in power to make their position known. That is how our government works, we vote those into office who will best express our viewpoint, we tell them our viewpoint in the manner described and encouraged by the recent letter read over the pulpit. I don't see a temple recommend question about the ammendment in the future, people here obviously have their own opinions and an obvious statement by the First Presidency hasn't changed anyones mind in the matter, if anything it has strengthened some people's resolve.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by shobeewan

As a Senator his job is to represent the people who sent him. If his constituents (sp?) want him to vote a certain way, that is the way he should vote regardless of his personal feelings.

I agree. That is the idea. The problem is, that gets shoved on the backburner so much its not even funny. Congressmen will do whatever they want as long as it doesn't rile up their constituents too much. They throw in the pork project every so often to ensure their own reelection.

With the amendment he may go with his consituents, depending how close the polls are etc, etc. Or he may just put his finger in the air, kind of get a jist, and work it into the 'bigger picture.'

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by shobeewan

As a Senator his job is to represent the people who sent him. If his constituents (sp?) want him to vote a certain way, that is the way he should vote regardless of his personal feelings. A Senator is employed by those who voted for him as their voice in congress. His personal feelings should be a very small part of his decision. The Church has broadcast its position on the matter and asked the members to appeal to those in power to make their position known. That is how our government works, we vote those into office who will best express our viewpoint, we tell them our viewpoint in the manner described and encouraged by the recent letter read over the pulpit. I don't see a temple recommend question about the ammendment in the future, people here obviously have their own opinions and an obvious statement by the First Presidency hasn't changed anyones mind in the matter, if anything it has strengthened some people's resolve.

I completely disagree. A Senator's job is not to seek out the will of his people on every issue and then vote in that manner. In fact, doing so is what frustrates so many Americans. How many times do we hear, "I wish so and so would quit doing things that polls say he should do and instead act on his own conscience?"

We elect representatives based on their views and how we think they would vote in a particular situation. We do not elect people to simply do what everyone wants them to do. If we did the latter, it wouldn't matter who was in office, everything would be done according to the popular will.

Doing things according to the popular will may sound good in theory, but the popular will is frequently difficult to decipher and is subject to rapid change. It is also generally based on little information, particularly in sensitive matters where the Senator is privy to far more sensitive information than the public is. We elect people, and then we hope they will make the correct decision in trying times. If they get things wrong (in our view) too many times, we vote them out of office. That is the difference between a republic and a democracy.