It is better, as far as getting the vote is concerned, I believe, to have a small, united group than an immense debating society.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Group discussion is very valuable; group drafting is less productive.
What I look at with each vote is that priority of whether it's good for the middle class or not.
All we have is our vote. But it's powerful.
I don't think consensus-building politics is what I'm meant to be doing.
As you get larger, it is harder to have focused discussions. Because one of the things I've learned about Congress over the past four years that I've been in is there's no shortage of opinions about how things should be done on any particular subject.
I believe in the critical importance of participating in the political system - from voting to standing for election. It's both rewarding and necessary that men and women of good will and clear thinking engage in honest, open debate.
The aspect of congresses and such meetings generally to which I attach the greatest importance is the discussion. That is why people assemble: to hear different opinions, rather than to pass resolutions.
Debate is healthy and no one in this chamber - starting with me - has a monopoly on being right.
Despite the occasional high decibel level, 'The Group' is not a shout fest. I don't simply want panelists with opposing opinions trying to out-shout one another.
A majority is always better than the best repartee.