The Democrat Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

 

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

I never said they were. I said when the don't vote, they are failing me (or their constituents). And that is so clearly the case, I find it bizarre that anyone could argue otherwise. Right now, Barack Obama is failing me (as an Illinoisan) about 30% of the time. That's not a great record. McCain's is even worse, which I might care about if I was in Arizona.

 

We elect officials, to represent our interests. Our interests are represented by way of votes in a legislature. Therefore, the single most important way for them to do their job is to vote.

 

There are ALSO other factors of course - voting is not the ONLY thing. But it is far and away the most important thing they do. All the other stuff is really just window dressing and side shows before the main event.

 

[lostfan]

What, then, is a realistic alternative to "failure" for someone running for higher office?

[NorthSideSox72]

What, then, is a realistic alternative to "failure" for someone running for higher office?

Stepping down while they run.

 

I'd actually have more respect for someone if they acknowledged that, hey, if I can't do my current job and run for President, then maybe I should choose one or the other. That would be a decision with a little courage behind it.

 

[jackie hayes]

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).

You say representing the interests of the state is "often" a way of accomplishing things that are in the state's interest. I agree, that is often true. But not always. If he can serve the state's interests better by campaigning than voting, I see no problem with it.

 

You state as absolute fact that the "#1 job is to represent the interests of your state". I just don't know that exact statement is true. The word "represent" is particularly meaningful, here. If one changes it to, the #1 job is to serve the interests of your state, it's a much different statement, and I'm not sure it's not a better summary of a senator's obligation.

[lostfan]

Stepping down while they run.

 

I'd actually have more respect for someone if they acknowledged that, hey, if I can't do my current job and run for President, then maybe I should choose one or the other. That would be a decision with a little courage behind it.

I don't think that's practical though. If you lose the election then you also lose the lower office you held by default, since you stepped down.

 

Unless you're talking about temporarily delegating authority, but that's really a whole other subject that they'd probably need to pass new laws to account for.

Edited July 18, 2008 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

Look, here is an analogy. Being a Senator is a job - they do it full time (at the national level anyway). They probably only spend 10% of their time in voting activities, maybe less. So does that make voting less important than the other 90% of their work?

 

Consider this. Your average computer programmer, working at a software company, may spend 10 to 20% of their time actually coding software. The other 80 to 90% of their time is spent on documention, testing, communications, project management, training, and all sorts of other activities.

 

But what if we used bmags' line of thinking here? That voting doesn't matter? For a programmer, if they aren't coding, they are accomplishing very little for the company. They are failing. And all that other stuff is lead up. Its done FOR the coding to occur.

 

Same with a Senator. All the other stuff they do is the dance before mating. Its setting the table for the real show, the real event, which is passing legislation. That is their primary job, just as producing software is for a programmer.

 

You can't program 60% of the expected code and be successful. And you can't vote 60% of the time and be a successful Senator.

 

[BigSqwert]

I'm not sure you can analogize a Legislator with other professions.

[jackie hayes]

Look, here is an analogy. Being a Senator is a job - they do it full time (at the national level anyway). They probably only spend 10% of their time in voting activities, maybe less. So does that make voting less important than the other 90% of their work?

 

Consider this. Your average computer programmer, working at a software company, may spend 10 to 20% of their time actually coding software. The other 80 to 90% of their time is spent on documention, testing, communications, project management, training, and all sorts of other activities.

 

But what if we used bmags' line of thinking here? That voting doesn't matter? For a programmer, if they aren't coding, they are accomplishing very little for the company. They are failing. And all that other stuff is lead up. Its done FOR the coding to occur.

 

Same with a Senator. All the other stuff they do is the dance before mating. Its setting the table for the real show, the real event, which is passing legislation. That is their primary job, just as producing software is for a programmer.

 

You can't program 60% of the expected code and be successful. And you can't vote 60% of the time and be a successful Senator.

That depends on what the programmer's stated objective is. If his employer wants him to write code, then he should write code. If his employer wants to him serve the company's interests, he should do the following -- write code when it will actually help the company, but when it is a piece of code that won't be improved by his working on it, he should spend the time doing something else that will help the company (eg, recruiting good young programmers).

[NorthSideSox72]

That depends on what the programmer's stated objective is. If his employer wants him to write code, then he should write code. If his employer wants to him serve the company's interests, he should do the following -- write code when it will actually help the company, but when it is a piece of code that won't be improved by his working on it, he should spend the time doing something else that will help the company (eg, recruiting good young programmers).

Yes, but why recruit programmers? To code. Programmers often spend most of their time not programming, but the actual programming and resulting software are still without question the key deliverable. If recruiting was their key deliverable, they'd be recruiters.

 

[Balta1701]

Stepping down while they run.

 

I'd actually have more respect for someone if they acknowledged that, hey, if I can't do my current job and run for President, then maybe I should choose one or the other. That would be a decision with a little courage behind it.

Let me fire back another analogy at you. Let's say you decided to start looking for a new job. Going to interviews, etc. Should you quit your old job before you find out if you're getting a new one? Let's say you're even spending some of your work time on the job search (be smart, don't get yourself fired because you emailed out a resume or something like that). Is that a rule you'd personally follow?

[NorthSideSox72]

Let me fire back another analogy at you. Let's say you decided to start looking for a new job. Going to interviews, etc. Should you quit your old job before you find out if you're getting a new one? Let's say you're even spending some of your work time on the job search (be smart, don't get yourself fired because you emailed out a resume or something like that). Is that a rule you'd personally follow?

More importantly, if I was spending 33% of my work time looking for another job, would I get fired? Probably, and with good reason. Its the boss that's important here - which for a Senator, is their constituency.

 

Running for President is a full time job. If I told my boss, "hey, I am going to go try to get another job, so I'll only be around here on occasion", how do you think that will go over?

 

[jackie hayes]

Yes, but why recruit programmers? To code. Programmers often spend most of their time not programming, but the actual programming and resulting software are still without question the key deliverable. If recruiting was their key deliverable, they'd be recruiters.

It was just an example. He could also read books to become a better programmer, or make coffee to help keep everyone awake. It doesn't matter. The relevant analogous question is simply, Should he code if he's not making the company better off by doing so? It depends on the job description. If the employer asks him to code, code, code, then, sure, churn out the stuff, no matter how pointless. If he has a broader objective, then perhaps he should do something else.

 

This is similar to a senator's job. If his job is to represent the state's interests, then he should vote on every single bill, even if his vote is irrelevant. If his job is to serve the state's interests, then he should vote when it will be more productive than anything else he could do. Which means, not always, necessarily.

[HuskyCaucasian]

So much for a Civilized Election Campaign:

[Balta1701]

Ok, this seems a bit underhanded. We all know that Obama's heading overseas this weekend, but it seems like they've been trying to keep the exact details under wraps for security reasons, especially the timing of visits to specific countries. Reuters is running an article now saying that this morning, Senator McCain may have divulged some of the details they were trying to keep quiet, including potentially the day of his Iraq visit.

DETROIT (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.

 

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

 

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

 

"I am sure that Sen. Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would've encountered before we started the surge," McCain said.

If Obama's schedule did originally call for arriving in Iraq today or tomorrow...then that's probably a pretty obnoxious security breach by the McCain camp there. Or he could have just been talking off the cuff...but still, if the Service is that worried about security that they're telling him he can't visit certain locales, shouldn't you be a bit careful with those sorts of details?

[jackie hayes]

Ok, this seems a bit underhanded. We all know that Obama's heading overseas this weekend, but it seems like they've been trying to keep the exact details under wraps for security reasons, especially the timing of visits to specific countries. Reuters is running an article now saying that this morning, Senator McCain may have divulged some of the details they were trying to keep quiet, including potentially the day of his Iraq visit.

If Obama's schedule did originally call for arriving in Iraq today or tomorrow...then that's probably a pretty obnoxious security breach by the McCain camp there. Or he could have just been talking off the cuff...but still, if the Service is that worried about security that they're telling him he can't visit certain locales, shouldn't you be a bit careful with those sorts of details?

Probably shouldn't have said that, but I'd chalk it up as an innocent mistake, not "underhanded". It doesn't give him any political advantage to divulge that info now, and I can't imagine McCain purposely jeopardizing Obama's personal safety.

[Balta1701]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/204672.php

I think you just linked to and quoted pretty much the same thing I posted.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I think you just linked to and quoted pretty much the same thing I posted.

DOH!

[HuskyCaucasian]

So much for a Civilized Election Campaign:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton: “While Barack Obama wants to change American foreign policy to wind down the war in Iraq and address the grave threat posed by a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, John McCain offers this patently misleading negative ad. Given his calls for a civil campaign, it's disappointing that Senator McCain has slipped so easily into the same, tired campaign tactics that have become so familiar to the American people."

[bmags]

More importantly, if I was spending 33% of my work time looking for another job, would I get fired? Probably, and with good reason. Its the boss that's important here - which for a Senator, is their constituency.

 

Running for President is a full time job. If I told my boss, "hey, I am going to go try to get another job, so I'll only be around here on occasion", how do you think that will go over?

 

Well, your job is not a U.S. Senator. If during his term in office, and he never ran for President, he went and had a diplomatic trip to different countries around the world to promote U.S. interests, but during that trip misses say, 25 inconsequential votes, did he not do his job? Well, he is representing you as a U.S. citizen, but not as an Illinoisian, so is his job only to represent your interests? Well, by running for President of the United States, he is representing the citizens of Illinois, he won by nearly 50 points in 04, and is ahead by a large majority with the same type of policies he intends to implement as presidency, so is he not serving your interests as he runs for president? He is. He is agenda-setting currently and pushing policies that won him his senate seat in Illinois to national conversation.

 

And while he is running for president. Staffs of hundreds are reading each bill and writing bills and writing recommendations to the Barack Obama on how to vote and what the conditions of the vote will be. He is reading constituent mail and having responses, even if written by an aide. He has offices in Illinois to help consitutuents with a number of things, academy recommendations, governmental problems, accomplishments. So during this campaign, he is pushing many ideals of Illinois voters to a national forefront, making it to close votes, having his staff work with constituents at home and staying in touch with their concerns or suggestions. Yet because he will miss 30% of his votes, largely without consequence as to the nature of the senate, he should step down? I would argue that Obama running for president are doing more for their state than Durbin is currently.

 

Is this situation comparable to your work?

[Rex Kickass]

Look, here is an analogy. Being a Senator is a job - they do it full time (at the national level anyway). They probably only spend 10% of their time in voting activities, maybe less. So does that make voting less important than the other 90% of their work?

 

Consider this. Your average computer programmer, working at a software company, may spend 10 to 20% of their time actually coding software. The other 80 to 90% of their time is spent on documention, testing, communications, project management, training, and all sorts of other activities.

 

But what if we used bmags' line of thinking here? That voting doesn't matter? For a programmer, if they aren't coding, they are accomplishing very little for the company. They are failing. And all that other stuff is lead up. Its done FOR the coding to occur.

 

Same with a Senator. All the other stuff they do is the dance before mating. Its setting the table for the real show, the real event, which is passing legislation. That is their primary job, just as producing software is for a programmer.

 

You can't program 60% of the expected code and be successful. And you can't vote 60% of the time and be a successful Senator.

 

I would argue that a big chunk of that work is not done by the Senator but by his staff.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would argue that a big chunk of that work is not done by the Senator but by his staff.

All the more reason for the importance of showing up for votes.

 

[Rex Kickass]

All the more reason for the importance of showing up for votes.

 

You're absolutely right. And the candidates do show up, when they are needed for votes. Many Senators do, in fact. Say what you want about Ted Kennedy but the dude came from his brain cancer treatments to vote for his consituents on Medicare funding last month. (So, coincidentally, did Obama)

 

Should a Senator resign from his position to campaign for higher office? Ideally, yes. But it doesn't tend to work. Just ask Bob Dole. For that matter, why is a Senator more needed than a Governor? or a President? There's something to be noted on here. They don't vote on things. Why should they be allowed to play hooky?

[NorthSideSox72]

You're absolutely right. And the candidates do show up, when they are needed for votes. Many Senators do, in fact. Say what you want about Ted Kennedy but the dude came from his brain cancer treatments to vote for his consituents on Medicare funding last month. (So, coincidentally, did Obama)

 

Should a Senator resign from his position to campaign for higher office? Ideally, yes. But it doesn't tend to work. Just ask Bob Dole. For that matter, why is a Senator more needed than a Governor? or a President? There's something to be noted on here. They don't vote on things. Why should they be allowed to play hooky?

Well in the case of Governors and Presidents, they aren't legislators, so obviously they don't "vote". They sign bills and treaties and pass executive orders and do other vote-like things, and the same type of standard should apply (IMO) to that work.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Well in the case of Governors and Presidents, they aren't legislators, so obviously they don't "vote". They sign bills and treaties and pass executive orders and do other vote-like things, and the same type of standard should apply (IMO) to that work.

A big problem is how the Senate does its business. Which is slow. Roll Call votes rarely happen when they're supposed to happen. So a Senator sometimes sits around all day waiting for the vote that may never actually materialize.