We were elected to serve our districts, and that demands putting bygones aside. That's what leadership's all about.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The principle is that every member needs to represent their district.
Organizational structures that allow divisions and departments to own their turf and people with long tenure to take root creates the same hardened group distinctions as Congressional redistricting to produce homogeneous voting blocs - all of which makes it easier to resist compromise, let alone collaboration.
Every decision I make in Congress will be centered on the needs of the district.
A big part of leadership is just being comfortable with the fact that some decisions really are only yours.
Further-more, partisan attachments powerfully shape political perceptions, beliefs and values, and incumbents enjoy advantages well beyond the way in which their districts are configured.
The middle ground in Congress has all but disappeared. The founders intended competing principles and interests to check excesses and create a balance in our politics that would benefit 'we the people.' Gerrymandered districts and a hyped-up fight-night media offer a partial explanation of why we seem to have neither checks nor balances.
We're representing our districts. I make decisions on my district.
Passionately defending one's principles is crucial. Representing your district is fundamental. But refusing to entertain the common ground - with no other cost but giving the other guy a political 'win' - is a disservice.
I see myself as a person who wants to serve the constituents within my district and find a way to move those who are not in our position philosophically to our position.
Leadership has a harder job to do than just choose sides. It must bring sides together.
No opposing quotes found.