The Democrat Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

Phil Gramm's back on the Flip-Flop Express:

After Sen. John McCain publicly repudiated his close friend and adviser Phil Gramm's comments about a "nation of whiners" and a "mental recession," the two old political comrades patched up their relationship.

 

 

Gramm apologized to McCain for his remarks that gave Democrats an opening against the Republican presidential candidate and provided several days of ammunition for blogs, cable television and radio talk shows. McCain told Gramm not to worry about the expected pitfalls of a campaign surrogate. Gramm will continue as an adviser and surrogate.

 

Gramm remained a steadfast supporter last year when it appeared that McCain's campaign had collapsed. McCain was a loyal backer of Gramm's failed 1988 campaign for president and did not leave until the candidate dropped out of the race.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think there has ever been a time where a Senator or Congressman running for president didn't miss a lot of votes. They do show up for the "important" votes. It's not something I'm really concerned about.

 

FWIW, they are both below average when compared with their peers. And to me, they are all important votes. If they weren't important, they wouldn't get to the level where they are being voted on in the first place.

[NorthSideSox72]

FWIW, they are both below average when compared with their peers. And to me, they are all important votes. If they weren't important, they wouldn't get to the level where they are being voted on in the first place.

I actually agree that its a problem, but I don't fully blame McCain or Obama for that. The reason its happening is the current, overly long format of a Presidential run.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

FWIW, they are both below average when compared with their peers. And to me, they are all important votes. If they weren't important, they wouldn't get to the level where they are being voted on in the first place.

yes and no. There are some votes that are so unanimous that there largely isnt a point in going back. I'd be more interested in "close vote" presence statistics.

What bothered me was this: People can attack Obama for a "flip-flop" on FISA. I get that that's fine. at least he voted. On the Medicare vote a few weeks back that was skin tight in votes, McCain didnt show up (Ted Kennedy did!) and released a press release saying he liked parts, but didnt like others. No indication if he would have voted for it or not. now THAT is vote dodging.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

I actually agree that its a problem, but I don't fully blame McCain or Obama for that. The reason its happening is the current, overly long format of a Presidential run.

Here's an idea:

Would it be out of bounds to allow "televotes"? Either phone in or vote online? I know there is reasons why people should be present to debate and such, but if you allow someone say, 10 televotes a year, might that work?

[southsider2k5]

yes and no. There are some votes that are so unanimous that there largely isnt a point in going back. I'd be more interested in "close vote" presence statistics.

What bothered me was this: You can attack Obama for a "flip-flop" on FISA. I get that that's fine. at least he voted. On the Medicare vote a few weeks back that was skin tight in votes, McCain didnt show up (Ted Kennedy did!) and released a press release saying he liked parts, but didnt like others. No indication if he would have voted for it or not. now THAT is vote dodging.

 

Who said I wasn't upset about it? You all do a fine job of reporting every single one of McCain's downfalls. What's the need to replicate that? There is no one else who talks about Obama's similar activities. If you were doing that, I wouldn't have posted it again either.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Who said I wasn't upset about it? You all do a fine job of reporting every single one of McCain's downfalls. What's the need to replicate that? There is no one else who talks about Obama's similar activities. If you were doing that, I wouldn't have posted it again either.

I should note:

I changed the wording of my post. I inadvertently said "You can attack". I meant "People can attack".

[lostfan]

FWIW, they are both below average when compared with their peers. And to me, they are all important votes. If they weren't important, they wouldn't get to the level where they are being voted on in the first place.

Honestly no, they're not. You've looked at records of proceedings on house.gov or senate.gov before I assume? There are plenty of votes of the "Voted YES on congratulating some person on some accomplishment" variety. Now if we're talking something like telecom immunity, or immigration reform, they'll fly back to Washington for those.

[southsider2k5]

Honestly no, they're not. You've looked at records of proceedings on house.gov or senate.gov before I assume? There are plenty of votes of the "Voted YES on congratulating some person on some accomplishment" variety. Now if we're talking something like telecom immunity, or immigration reform, they'll fly back to Washington for those.

 

I am guessing they got the 99 total, they took out that crap, or the total would have been WAY higher.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Honestly no, they're not. You've looked at records of proceedings on house.gov or senate.gov before I assume? There are plenty of votes of the "Voted YES on congratulating some person on some accomplishment" variety. Now if we're talking something like telecom immunity, or immigration reform, they'll fly back to Washington for those.

exactly.

[bmags]

There is no one else who talks about Obama's similar activities...right. Not one of us was interested in FISA, not one of us commented on public finance, nobody talked about Rev. Wright. That didn't happen. All that happens is McCain bashing. You are the lone fighter to show up Obama.

[lostfan]

I am guessing they got the 99 total, they took out that crap, or the total would have been WAY higher.

Possibly. I really don't know TBH. All I'm saying is that it's common, even accepted, for legislators to miss a lot of votes when they're campaigning.

[bmags]

Honestly no, they're not. You've looked at records of proceedings on house.gov or senate.gov before I assume? There are plenty of votes of the "Voted YES on congratulating some person on some accomplishment" variety. Now if we're talking something like telecom immunity, or immigration reform, they'll fly back to Washington for those.

 

From a political scientist perspective, it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not. And it can be argued that they are serving their constituents by running for higher office because their interests are better represented there.

[NorthSideSox72]

From a political scientist perspective, it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not. And it can be argued that they are serving their constituents by running for higher office because their interests are better represented there.

Buh?

 

How can you possibly say, from any perspective, that "it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not". You might say that some votes on some issues are a little silly, or that you understand they can't be there 100% of the time while running for President. But I have to say your statement here is off base. A Senator is there to represent the interests of their state. And if they don't vote, they aren't doing that.

 

[southsider2k5]

From a political scientist perspective, it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not. And it can be argued that they are serving their constituents by running for higher office because their interests are better represented there.

 

If it doesn't matter, why do we elect them and support the entire Washington infrastructure in the first place?

[bmags]

Buh?

 

How can you possibly say, from any perspective, that "it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not". You might say that some votes on some issues are a little silly, or that you understand they can't be there 100% of the time while running for President. But I have to say your statement here is off base. A Senator is there to represent the interests of their state. And if they don't vote, they aren't doing that.

 

Few votes will be close enough to need every senator. If they can't get enough senators for cloture, then it signals to come back, which they most always will. But during campaigning it doesn't matter if they are in Washington for voting, because, as said, most bills will pass overwhelmingly. Hence, it doesn't matter.

[bmags]

For all the literalists, it doesn't matter DURING CAMPAIGNS, especially for higher office, clearly during their tenure they need to be there so they can have credit claiming and bills to their name. But during a presidential campaign, Washington is not failing us because of the campaigns of two senators.

[NorthSideSox72]

Few votes will be close enough to need every senator. If they can't get enough senators for cloture, then it signals to come back, which they most always will. But during campaigning it doesn't matter if they are in Washington for voting, because, as said, most bills will pass overwhelmingly. Hence, it doesn't matter.

This is the same argument I hear people make who don't care enough to vote for elected officials. They say their vote doesn't matter. Well, if everyone took that stance, then we wouldn't have a democracy anymore.

 

And in the case of a Senator, the argument is much, much more hollow. There are only 100 of them, and they are PAID and ELECTED to vote on issues. If they don't do that the great majority of the time, then they are quite simply failing their constituents.

 

It absolutely matters, more than any other single thing they do.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

For all the literalists, it doesn't matter DURING CAMPAIGNS, especially for higher office, clearly during their tenure they need to be there so they can have credit claiming and bills to their name. But during a presidential campaign, Washington is not failing us because of the campaigns of two senators.

Again, you are off on the wrong track here. That is not why they need to vote. They need to vote to represent the interests of their constituents.

 

[jackie hayes]

Buh?

 

How can you possibly say, from any perspective, that "it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not". You might say that some votes on some issues are a little silly, or that you understand they can't be there 100% of the time while running for President. But I have to say your statement here is off base. A Senator is there to represent the interests of their state. And if they don't vote, they aren't doing that.

 

That bolded part isn't necessarily true. One could argue that they are not there to "represent" the state's interests, they are there to accomplish things that are in the state's interests. If there is virtually no chance that a senator's individual vote accomplishes those things, it may be better for the state that he raises the probability that he is elected president.

 

Of course, once he is elected president, he no longer serves the interests of just one state. If, however, he was elected because his basic beliefs are supported by the state, that state may prefer that he is campaigning in an effort to enact those beliefs, rather than casting a vote that will accomplish nothing.

 

Just saying, it's not that clear that his state would oppose campaigning over casting votes. bmags does have a point.

[southsider2k5]

This is the same argument I hear people make who don't care enough to vote for elected officials. They say their vote doesn't matter. Well, if everyone took that stance, then we wouldn't have a democracy anymore.

 

And in the case of a Senator, the argument is much, much more hollow. There are only 100 of them, and they are PAID and ELECTED to vote on issues. If they don't do that the great majority of the time, then they are quite simply failing their constituents.

 

It absolutely matters, more than any other single thing they do.

 

I don't think I could have said it any better. I just wish I could do my job 2/3 of the time and have someone defend me.

[NorthSideSox72]

That bolded part isn't necessarily true. One could argue that they are not there to "represent" the state's interests, they are there to accomplish things that are in the state's interests. If there is virtually no chance that a senator's individual vote accomplishes those things, it may be better for the state that he raises the probability that he is elected president.

 

Of course, once he is elected president, he no longer serves the interests of just one state. If, however, he was elected because his basic beliefs are supported by the state, that state may prefer that he is campaigning in an effort to enact those beliefs, rather than casting a vote that will accomplish nothing.

 

Just saying, it's not that clear that his state would oppose campaigning over casting votes. bmags does have a point.

I made no point about what these constituents may feel, as I have no way of knowing. bmags didn't either. He was saying that it doesn't matter, I am saying it does.

 

I also said, earlier, that I don't entirely blame the candidates for it in this case, because of the absurd nature of a modern Presidential campaign.

 

As a Senator, your #1 job is to represent the interests of your state (which, often, is by way of accomplishing things that are in their interests, as you re-stated for me).

 

[bmags]

This is the same argument I hear people make who don't care enough to vote for elected officials. They say their vote doesn't matter. Well, if everyone took that stance, then we wouldn't have a democracy anymore.

 

And in the case of a Senator, the argument is much, much more hollow. There are only 100 of them, and they are PAID and ELECTED to vote on issues. If they don't do that the great majority of the time, then they are quite simply failing their constituents.

 

It absolutely matters, more than any other single thing they do.

 

First off, no it's not the same argument.

 

Correct, and for the vast majority of McCain's senatorial career and majority of Obama's, they were there to vote, and draft legislation. BUt during campaigns, it has been accepted that candidates can spend prior months to a big election (say, a presidential one) on campaigning. This is due to the logic that with 98 other senators, the majority of housekeeping will still be getting done, and the importance of the future of the congress, country, party is dependent on the ability of the new candidate to run. If they need the candidate, then the candidate will come back, and make an informed decision on that bill that was probably a staple of their campaign anyways.

 

So, in conclusion, whether or not a senator running for president is there whether to hang a flag over the capitol for Secretary's day will not affect congress.

 

So no, your government, your senators are not failing you by campaigning for higher office. It doesn't matter, no matter how much that might shock.

 

Much like how when your governor could be running for president, the state doesn't fall into a quagmire with legislation all piled up on the executives desk without anyone to pass it.

[lostfan]

This is a good discussion. I do think that bmags has a valid point.

 

By the way, at my job, looking for more business (I guess I'd put campaigning in that category) is legitimate work, even if it takes away from my actual "job."

[bmags]

Again, you are off on the wrong track here. That is not why they need to vote. They need to vote to represent the interests of their constituents.

 

as a US senator your interests should be two fold, you bring with you the knowledge of how it affects your constituents, but you are also there to serve the people of the United States. Running for president accomplishes the latter and the former.