Senators as Presidential Candidates
I was going to post this in Kickaha's thread, but thought perhaps it deserved its own. Should sitting Senators be allowed to campaign for President or should they have to resign their seats in order to run? I personally think that if you ran for Senate (or the House of Representatives) and won, you have a responsiblity to serve your state, rather than yourself. Or perhaps we should shorten the campaign season, both for nominations and for the actual presidential race, in order to allow interested Senators or Representatives to concentrate longer on their jobs. There are a lot of senators who could be good presidents, but they should wait to run until after their term expires.
Comments
Think of it as an employment contract - they agree to work for us, if we hire them. We do, then they decide to go work for someone else? And we can't fire them to replace them? What kind of screwed up system is that?
A phrase Kerry said tonight resonated with me, when he was discussing Gephardt: "public servant". I think that's a title that too many politicians lose sight of. It's not a popularity contest, it's not king or queen of the prom, it's a job, and an important one. If you're just going to use it for your own personal gain, don't bother us by wasting our time.
he presented the 4 candidates who had a chance :
- Dean
- Kerry
- Clark
and a fourth one (sorry i forget his name).
It's all the same.
Originally posted by rageous
They should not be kept from running for president regardless of what their current status is as a representative for their state. This is America. Anyone who can afford to run, and believes they have a shot should run if they want to. It is their choice.
Then let them step down from the job they agreed to do, and are failing to do.
Then they're a free agent, and can do whatever they want.
My beef is that they tell the public "I'll work for you!", and then welsh on that.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Should the vice president be forced to resign before running for president? Should presidents resign before running for re-election? Should a Senator resign before going back home to run for re-election?
It's all the same.
I disagree. In the latter two cases, they're re-running for exactly the same spot that they were 'hired' for in the first place. Think of it as an employee evaluation.
In the former case, the two offices are so closely tied now, that I don't see much of a distinction.
In all three cases, an incumbent usually can skip the entire primary process and get right to the election year in the final year of their term - which I had already stated I had less of a problem with.
But backing out on your job 1/3 of the way through it? Slimy.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Then let them step down from the job they agreed to do, and are failing to do.
Then they're a free agent, and can do whatever they want.
My beef is that they tell the public "I'll work for you!", and then welsh on that.
Why step down? How many people have run for President while holding some public office? How many of these people were turned on by the public that elected them for failure to do the job they currently hold?
I would argue that the guy holding public office who decides to run for President would be in a better position to serve the interests of his public than he would be in any other instance.
How many major votes did John Kerry miss over the past year? Bob Dole did very well running for both the nomination and leading the Senate in 1995 and early 1996. If one can lead the Senate and fight a grueling nomination battle, then clearly just being a Senator and a candidate is emminently doable.
The only gripe I can see you legitimately having here is that you had no reason to think that Edwards would run for president when you elected him. Generally, candidates make it known that they're considering a run for a higher office when they run for lower ones ? Bush did this in 1998, for example. And everyone knew that Dole would run in 1996, and everyone knew that Clinton was planning to run in 1992. Edwards' campaign is something of a surprise. And probably premature. He'd likely be a better candidate in 2008.
If you say you're going to work for your constituency, say, the citizens of your state, and then fail to do so because you decide to aim your sights on a national office, then yeah, you might be able to do good for the other 49 states as well, but in the meantime you've screwed over the folks of one. Specifically, the ones that trusted you in the first place.
In my mind, if someone pulls that, then they can't be trusted to work for the national level either, so why would you want them in that office?
Originally posted by Kirkland
Aside from your claims, I see no indication that John Edwards failed to continue in his role as a Senator for the past four years. And in any case, even if he had, that doesn't mean that others can't successfully juggle the jobs of Senator and candidate.
How many major votes did John Kerry miss over the past year? Bob Dole did very well running for both the nomination and leading the Senate in 1995 and early 1996. If one can lead the Senate and fight a grueling nomination battle, then clearly just being a Senator and a candidate is emminently doable.
The only gripe I can see you legitimately having here is that you had no reason to think that Edwards would run for president when you elected him. Generally, candidates make it known that they're considering a run for a higher office when they run for lower ones ? Bush did this in 1998, for example. And everyone knew that Dole would run in 1996, and everyone knew that Clinton was planning to run in 1992. Edwards' campaign is something of a surprise. And probably premature. He'd likely be a better candidate in 2008.
Exactly. It was a bait and switch on the citizens who voted for him. We wanted *him* to represent us, and what we got was... well... 1/2 of him? At best? His voting record is lower than average... not exactly what he portrayed himself as when running for the seat. And, IIRC, his % has gone down further since his announcement of nomination.
If he'd waited until 2008, not only would he have had a lot less ill-will back home and a stronger base, but would have had more experience under his belt, and I think would make a much better candidate all around.
But now? Bad timing, bad form.
Originally posted by Kickaha
If you say you're going to work for your constituency, say, the citizens of your state, and then fail to do so because you decide to aim your sights on a national office, then yeah, you might be able to do good for the other 49 states as well, but in the meantime you've screwed over the folks of one. Specifically, the ones that trusted you in the first place.
How exactly does running for a higher office while holding a lesser one equate to "screwing over the folks?" I can see where there is the potential for this to happen, but I don't hear the cries from the citizens of states in which some Presidential candidates currently serve.
Should there be an uproar, then the candidate needs to take that heavily into account and seriously consider withdrawing from the race or resigning his position. But nowhere do I hear any such uproar.
Originally posted by rageous
How exactly does running for a higher office while holding a lesser one equate to "screwing over the folks?" I can see where there is the potential for this to happen, but I don't hear the cries from the citizens of states in which some Presidential candidates currently serve.
Should there be an uproar, then the candidate needs to take that heavily into account and seriously consider withdrawing from the race or resigning his position. But nowhere do I hear any such uproar.
Indeed. Folks were grousing about his performance *before* he announced his run, and it made sense when he did so.
*IF* a candidate can pull it off, then more power to them. *THIS* one has seemingly dropped the ball.
Bottom line: he's not doing the job that he was elected to do, to the capacity that he indicated he would in his Senatorial campaign. A lot of folks here feel cheated out of a Senator. We wanted more than just a placeholder or poster boy.
The local media here still fall at his feet though, so the coverage of the grumbling has been non-existent, which is sad. In their eyes, he can do no wrong. Bleah.
But to get this back from a particular candidate to the more general case: I believe that on a fundamental level you do the job you were elected to do and you do it to the best of your ability. Running for another office barely mid-term is not doing that, and is a disservice to your constituency.
Originally posted by Kickaha
If you say you're going to work for your constituency, say, the citizens of your state, and then fail to do so because you decide to aim your sights on a national office, then yeah, you might be able to do good for the other 49 states as well, but in the meantime you've screwed over the folks of one. Specifically, the ones that trusted you in the first place.
In my mind, if someone pulls that, then they can't be trusted to work for the national level either, so why would you want them in that office?
So Bob Dole screwed over the citizens of Kansas in 1996?
Bill Clinton screwed over the citizens of Arkansas in 1992?
George Bush screwed over the citizens of Texas in 2000?
Ted Kennedy screweed over the citizens of Massachusetts in 1980?
His brother screwed them over in 1960?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Bottom line: he's not doing the job that he was elected to do, to the capacity that he indicated he would in his Senatorial campaign. A lot of folks here feel cheated out of a Senator. We wanted more than just a placeholder or poster boy.
The local media here still fall at his feet though, so the coverage of the grumbling has been non-existent, which is sad. In their eyes, he can do no wrong. Bleah.
Given this situation (one I am not intimately familiar with) then I would say that if all you say is true, there is a case to be made for Edwards not running for President.
But as far as what this topic was originally intended to discuss, the fact that Edwards may be dropping the ball by no means justifies taking away the rights of Senators or Congressmen to run for the office of President.
Originally posted by Kickaha
*IF* a candidate can pull it off, then more power to them. *THIS* one has seemingly dropped the ball.
Now you're changing your argument. Earlier you were arguing a flat-out general principle, now it just applies to John Edwards?
The local media here still fall at his feet though, so the coverage of the grumbling has been non-existent, which is sad. In their eyes, he can do no wrong. Bleah.
If discontent with Edwards were as broad as you seem to be indicating, the media would be full of it. It sounds to me you're projecting your personal opinions on the electorate as a whole.
Kirk
Originally posted by rageous
Given this situation (one I am not intimately familiar with) then I would say that if all you say is true, there is a case to be made for Edwards not running for President.
But as far as what this topic was originally intended to discuss, the fact that Edwards may be dropping the ball by no means justifies taking away the rights of Senators or Congressmen to run for the office of President.
What about the rights of the constituency to get what they voted for?
It simply comes down to 'what job are you going to do'? The one you were elected to do, or run for another office? I maintain you can't easily do both and do both well. Since running for higher office is the shinier prize, guess which ones gets shuffled to the side in many cases?
I repeat: if a candidate is near the end of their term, and have acted responsibly in their office until that point, and have fulfilled their duties until that point, then it isn't so harmful to the constituency if they announce that they wish to run for higher office. If, however, as in this case, only 1/3 of the contract has been fulfilled when the official decides there's something better out there, I have a problem with it.
If he had finished out even one freakin' term, I don't think many people would have blinked twice about it, but we got schnookered by a shyster. I mean really, would you have thought of voting for John Edwards, trial laywer? Heck no. *Senator* John Edwards gives him such a better ring, don't you think?
Originally posted by Kirkland
Now you're changing your argument. Earlier you were arguing a flat-out general principle, now it just applies to John Edwards?[/b]
I was trying to agree that *some* candidates may be able to pull it off, and that may be an argument for them not stepping down. In general, I still do not believe that to be the case.
And, if you look back, twas you who brought up that line of discussion, I was merely responding to it. I changed nothing in my argument.
If discontent with Edwards were as broad as you seem to be indicating, the media would be full of it. It sounds to me you're projecting your personal opinions on the electorate as a whole.
Kirk
Read the other Edwards thread regarding the local media. He's their Golden Boy, and has been since day one. If there's even the slightest small appearance he makes, it gets front page status, all other news be damned. Seriously. The best one was the (I believe) third day of the Iraq invasion, when guess who was front page on the local Raleigh paper? Iraq coverage started on page two. Go figure. Just a *SLIGHT* slant there.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I repeat: if a candidate is near the end of their term, and have acted responsibly in their office until that point, and have fulfilled their duties until that point, then it isn't so harmful to the constituency if they announce that they wish to run for higher office. If, however, as in this case, only 1/3 of the contract has been fulfilled when the official decides there's something better out there, I have a problem with it.
Well this is where you and I agree. I don't feel it's a good idea for someone to attempt to abandon their post when they've not done as much as they could do for their constituency.
However, I will never take my displeasure to the point of attempting to deny a citizen the right to run for the office of the presidency.
Nowhere did I state that I wanted it to be *illegal* for them to do so... I just don't think it's *RIGHT*.
Perhaps this was our disconnect?
OTOH, think of it as an actual employment situation. You are hired to do a job, and part way through you decide you don't want to do it any more, and you start looking for another, better job, to the point where you are not doing your current job to the level that you agreed to. Should your employer be forced to keep you, even if you're not doing your current job? Or should they have the option to fire you for breach of contract? Should that breach of contract be a legal, litigious offense? Current law says it is, that the employer has the right to fire you, and that you were wrong in this case. I don't see a large difference between the two situations.
We voters are so complacent once the election is over that we forget that we're supposed to be the client, the customer, and the boss, all rolled into one.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I never said that.
Nowhere did I state that I wanted it to be *illegal* for them to do so... I just don't think it's *RIGHT*.
Perhaps this was our disconnect?
Well this thread is about denying the right of those holding public office from to run for President.
Originally posted by Naderfan
I was going to post this in Kickaha's thread, but thought perhaps it deserved its own. Should sitting Senators be allowed to campaign for President or should they have to resign their seats in order to run?