Well this thread is about denying the right of those holding public office from to run for President.
One could counter-argue that no one is denying them any right whatsoever... since they have no right to the office that they were first elected to.
Their *right* is to run.
Their *responsibility* is to abdicate their elected position to allow someone to responsibly take it over.
I firmly believe you can't have rights without responsibilities.
Edit: It's kind of like requiring candidates to file formally, in my opinion... if someone fails to do so, have you taken away their right to run? No, because they failed to perform their responsibility to file.
One could counter-argue that no one is denying them any right whatsoever... since they have no right to the office that they were first elected to.
Their *right* is to run.
Their *responsibility* is to abdicate their elected position to allow someone to responsibly take it over.
I firmly believe you can't have rights without responsibilities.
If someone told you you must resign any employment you hold before seeking other employment, would that be equally acceptable to you? Does this also mean we should be unwilling to hold down multiple jobs, as one could potentially interfere with the other? We all have our own personal responsibilities that we feel we need to meet. It's not for others to determine the best way for us to do that.
If it meant that I had to break my current contract to pursue that other job, the *COURTS* would demand that I be held liable.
I am demanding no less for our officials than for what we have for ourselves, that is all.
As I've stated before, *IF* a candidate can both fulfill their office to the best of their ability, and run for another higher office at the same time... more power to them. I just don't believe that it is possible. Of course, then you get into the 'best of their ability' vs. 'acceptable performance to their voters' situation, which seems to be the standard that rules the day.
And, while we have personal responsibilities to ourselves, we also have responsibilities to those that we enter into contracts with. If you're arguing that an official that pursues higher office is fulfilling their own *personal* responsibility, then I believe that only serves to underscore the lack of responsibility to those that they purport to serve in the first place, no?
As I've stated before, *IF* a candidate can both fulfill their office to the best of their ability, and run for another higher office at the same time... more power to them. I just don't believe that it is possible.
There you go again, applying this rule generally. Where's your evidence?
Again, in what way were the constituents of:
Bob Dole (96)
George W. Bush (2000)
Bill Clinton (92)
Joe Lieberman (2000)
Gary Hart (84)
Michael Dukakis (88)
and all the others...
specifically underserved? Just because you think you're getting a raw deal because of Edwards doesn't mean that Kansans got a bad deal in 1996, for instance.
If Bob Dole can run for president and run the Senate, how can you argue that you can't be a Senator and run for president effectively at the same time? Dole did it.
'Best of their ability' vs. 'acceptable performance to the voters'.
If the latter was satisfied, then fine. I just would like to think that someone running for office would aspire to the former.
Time, brain power, and sheer energy are all finite resources that need to be parceled out by anyone.
I would like to believe that these offices are not just stepping stones for personal power and gain, but are seen as important roles by the people fulfilling them. I guess I'm just naive.
Perhaps actually disallowing running for higher office while sitting in a current office (which is not what I was stating in the first place, but will entertain here for a moment) would make politicians think twice about what their role is, and how to fulfill the duties they have taken on.
I would like to believe that these offices are not just stepping stones for personal power and gain, but are seen as important roles by the people fulfilling them. I guess I'm just naive.
I hope you aren't assuming that those who strive to become President all fail to respect the importance of positions they currently hold?
Let's pretend for a moment that the rules are set up so that one must resign their position to become President. Doesn't this then mean that all those who hold public office that decide to run truly do lack respect for their current position? Quitting your job to attempt to attain the presidency is far more selfish than running and simultaneously trying to serve those that elected you to your current position. I would have far less respect for the former.
'Best of their ability' vs. 'acceptable performance to the voters'.
If the latter was satisfied, then fine. I just would like to think that someone running for office would aspire to the former.
Why can't it be both? You're saying that one can't be a Senator to the best of their ability, and also run for President? Just because one guy you particularly loathe with great vitriol apparently can't manage it, in your opinion? That's a load of bullshit.
Quote:
I would like to believe that these offices are not just stepping stones for personal power and gain, but are seen as important roles by the people fulfilling them. I guess I'm just naive.
No, you're trying to force into black and white a situation with many shades of gray. These offices are both stepping stones to higher offices and important roles that are respected by those holding them ? you know, like every other job in the world.
Quote:
Perhaps actually disallowing running for higher office while sitting in a current office (which is not what I was stating in the first place, but will entertain here for a moment) would make politicians think twice about what their role is, and how to fulfill the duties they have taken on.
Or perhaps doing so would deny us quality candidates for president, or force the early end to the careers of excellent Senators. America is a far better place for the fact that Bob Dole, for instance, wasn't forced to resign his Senate seat to seek the presidency in 1988.
Let's say that someone is the world's best Senator.
And that America is run by a fairly poor president.
And that lots of Americans want that Senator to run for the White House.
But he's the world's best Senator, and him leaving the Senate would be a bad thing to have happen. Yet his being in the White House would be better than his being in the Senate.
Should he run for president?
If he does so and loses, under the current system, the public hasn't lost ?_he's still the world's best Senator.
In Kickaha's World of Absurd Rules, everyone would lose if he ran and lost, becuase now he's not only not president, but he doesn't get to be the World's Best Senator anymore, either.
All that such stupid rules would do is bar entry to Oval Office races by our best and brightest legislators, those who, even if they fail to attain the presidency, we'd still want to have in the Senate or Congress. That's a bad idea, bad for democracy and bad for America.
I hope you aren't assuming that those who strive to become President all fail to respect the importance of positions they currently hold?
Let's pretend for a moment that the rules are set up so that one must resign their position to become President. Doesn't this then mean that all those who hold public office that decide to run truly do lack respect for their current position? Quitting your job to attempt to attain the presidency is far more selfish than running and simultaneously trying to serve those that elected you to your current position. I would have far less respect for the former.
And I see it as far more respectful than doing a less-than-optimal job that you were elected to. Resources are finite. Taking on a second large job necessarily means that the first will not have the full attention and resources of the individual, and I do believe that quality in such cases can only suffer.
I've said my piece, we three are just going around in circles here.
Agree to disagree, yadda yadda yadda, and move on.
Comments
Originally posted by rageous
Well this thread is about denying the right of those holding public office from to run for President.
One could counter-argue that no one is denying them any right whatsoever... since they have no right to the office that they were first elected to.
Their *right* is to run.
Their *responsibility* is to abdicate their elected position to allow someone to responsibly take it over.
I firmly believe you can't have rights without responsibilities.
Edit: It's kind of like requiring candidates to file formally, in my opinion... if someone fails to do so, have you taken away their right to run? No, because they failed to perform their responsibility to file.
Originally posted by Kickaha
One could counter-argue that no one is denying them any right whatsoever... since they have no right to the office that they were first elected to.
Their *right* is to run.
Their *responsibility* is to abdicate their elected position to allow someone to responsibly take it over.
I firmly believe you can't have rights without responsibilities.
If someone told you you must resign any employment you hold before seeking other employment, would that be equally acceptable to you? Does this also mean we should be unwilling to hold down multiple jobs, as one could potentially interfere with the other? We all have our own personal responsibilities that we feel we need to meet. It's not for others to determine the best way for us to do that.
I am demanding no less for our officials than for what we have for ourselves, that is all.
As I've stated before, *IF* a candidate can both fulfill their office to the best of their ability, and run for another higher office at the same time... more power to them. I just don't believe that it is possible. Of course, then you get into the 'best of their ability' vs. 'acceptable performance to their voters' situation, which seems to be the standard that rules the day.
And, while we have personal responsibilities to ourselves, we also have responsibilities to those that we enter into contracts with. If you're arguing that an official that pursues higher office is fulfilling their own *personal* responsibility, then I believe that only serves to underscore the lack of responsibility to those that they purport to serve in the first place, no?
Originally posted by Kickaha
As I've stated before, *IF* a candidate can both fulfill their office to the best of their ability, and run for another higher office at the same time... more power to them. I just don't believe that it is possible.
There you go again, applying this rule generally. Where's your evidence?
Again, in what way were the constituents of:
Bob Dole (96)
George W. Bush (2000)
Bill Clinton (92)
Joe Lieberman (2000)
Gary Hart (84)
Michael Dukakis (88)
and all the others...
specifically underserved? Just because you think you're getting a raw deal because of Edwards doesn't mean that Kansans got a bad deal in 1996, for instance.
If Bob Dole can run for president and run the Senate, how can you argue that you can't be a Senator and run for president effectively at the same time? Dole did it.
Kirk
If the latter was satisfied, then fine. I just would like to think that someone running for office would aspire to the former.
Time, brain power, and sheer energy are all finite resources that need to be parceled out by anyone.
I would like to believe that these offices are not just stepping stones for personal power and gain, but are seen as important roles by the people fulfilling them. I guess I'm just naive.
Perhaps actually disallowing running for higher office while sitting in a current office (which is not what I was stating in the first place, but will entertain here for a moment) would make politicians think twice about what their role is, and how to fulfill the duties they have taken on.
Nope, there's that naivete again, dammit.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I would like to believe that these offices are not just stepping stones for personal power and gain, but are seen as important roles by the people fulfilling them. I guess I'm just naive.
I hope you aren't assuming that those who strive to become President all fail to respect the importance of positions they currently hold?
Let's pretend for a moment that the rules are set up so that one must resign their position to become President. Doesn't this then mean that all those who hold public office that decide to run truly do lack respect for their current position? Quitting your job to attempt to attain the presidency is far more selfish than running and simultaneously trying to serve those that elected you to your current position. I would have far less respect for the former.
Originally posted by Kickaha
'Best of their ability' vs. 'acceptable performance to the voters'.
If the latter was satisfied, then fine. I just would like to think that someone running for office would aspire to the former.
Why can't it be both? You're saying that one can't be a Senator to the best of their ability, and also run for President? Just because one guy you particularly loathe with great vitriol apparently can't manage it, in your opinion? That's a load of bullshit.
I would like to believe that these offices are not just stepping stones for personal power and gain, but are seen as important roles by the people fulfilling them. I guess I'm just naive.
No, you're trying to force into black and white a situation with many shades of gray. These offices are both stepping stones to higher offices and important roles that are respected by those holding them ? you know, like every other job in the world.
Perhaps actually disallowing running for higher office while sitting in a current office (which is not what I was stating in the first place, but will entertain here for a moment) would make politicians think twice about what their role is, and how to fulfill the duties they have taken on.
Or perhaps doing so would deny us quality candidates for president, or force the early end to the careers of excellent Senators. America is a far better place for the fact that Bob Dole, for instance, wasn't forced to resign his Senate seat to seek the presidency in 1988.
Kirk
And that America is run by a fairly poor president.
And that lots of Americans want that Senator to run for the White House.
But he's the world's best Senator, and him leaving the Senate would be a bad thing to have happen. Yet his being in the White House would be better than his being in the Senate.
Should he run for president?
If he does so and loses, under the current system, the public hasn't lost ?_he's still the world's best Senator.
In Kickaha's World of Absurd Rules, everyone would lose if he ran and lost, becuase now he's not only not president, but he doesn't get to be the World's Best Senator anymore, either.
All that such stupid rules would do is bar entry to Oval Office races by our best and brightest legislators, those who, even if they fail to attain the presidency, we'd still want to have in the Senate or Congress. That's a bad idea, bad for democracy and bad for America.
Kirk
Second: Now who's portraying things in black and white? Any other strawmen you'd like to put up?
This is getting ridiculous.
Originally posted by rageous
I hope you aren't assuming that those who strive to become President all fail to respect the importance of positions they currently hold?
Let's pretend for a moment that the rules are set up so that one must resign their position to become President. Doesn't this then mean that all those who hold public office that decide to run truly do lack respect for their current position? Quitting your job to attempt to attain the presidency is far more selfish than running and simultaneously trying to serve those that elected you to your current position. I would have far less respect for the former.
And I see it as far more respectful than doing a less-than-optimal job that you were elected to. Resources are finite. Taking on a second large job necessarily means that the first will not have the full attention and resources of the individual, and I do believe that quality in such cases can only suffer.
I've said my piece, we three are just going around in circles here.
Agree to disagree, yadda yadda yadda, and move on.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Agree to disagree, yadda yadda yadda, and move on.
I was enjoying my discussion with you... I hate to see it end on a note like that.