No excuse. But in fact that is how a legislator must operate. He is, after all, responsible only to his constituents. I suggest you read Federalist #10, by Madison. Indeed the most underrated of our founding fathers. From the Mt.Vernon Conference to the spring of 1790, he was the most effective politician in the country. A political genius of the first water. At the Convention, in the Virginia ratification convention, and in the organization of the new government, he got things done. Leadership in a legislative body is very different than leadership in the executive. You are never your own man. The exceptions prove the rule. But men like John Quincy Adams are the exception; he makes Ron Paul seem like a trimmer, but even he made concessions to get things done, for he knew the name of the game.
I suggest you read _all_ the federalist papers ;)
that is how a legislator must operate
Leadership in a legislative body is very different
You are never your own man
Seem like excuses to me. While I will agree that concessions are the bilateral essence of negotiation, the necessary counterpart of concession is gain... there has to be something worth trading for such concessions. The reason for concessions cannot reasonably be “that is how a legislator must operate”, “Leadership in a legislative body is very different”, and “You are never your own man”.
just sayin’