MyDD :: In Defense of Senators as Presidential Candidates

In Defense of Senators as Presidential Candidates

by Paul Simon Democrat, Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:44:44 AM EST

After reading the comments on this month's straw poll thread, I felt compelled to write on this subject. I am sick and tired of reading comments mindlessly repeating the mantra, "No more senators! Senators can't win!" I am writing this diary in the hope of addressing the major arguments put forward by the "No more senators!" camp, and having a more intelligent debate on this subject and possibly changing some minds.

As a disclaimer, if you don't already know, I have a horse in the 2008 race, and it is one of the senator breed: I've been blogging in support of Russ Feingold for almost a year. However, as I do not wish this to become another tiresome debate about his marital status, religion, or position on the First Gulf War, this is the last time I'll mention him in this diary.

And now, our feature presentation...

Thinking about the comments I've read from the "No more senators!" crowd, I believe there are four main arguments they use and I will now attempt to address each of them, starting with the most commonly used one.

"HISTORY! No senator has been elected President since 1960!" This is true. It is also irrelevant and the fact that it is repeated in so many places as though it actually means something shows the poor state of American political discourse today.

Pop quiz time: Before George H.W. Bush was elected in 1988, who was the last incumbent Vice President elected to the big job?

The Red Fox of Kinderhook, Martin Van Buren in 1836!

How many governors were elected President between FDR in 1932 and Jimmy Carter in 1976?

Survey says, ZERO!

How many governors (or former governors) lost presidential elections between 1932 and 1976?

Three governors/former governors lost a total of five elections in that timeframe. (Not counting George Wallace.)

What does any of this mean? Not an awful lot. There are many explanations for those statistics besides the office held by the losing candidate. And the same with the senators who have lost presidential elections in recent memory. Perhaps Bob Dole lost because he was up against a popular president in a time of prosperity? Perhaps George McGovern and Barry Goldwater lost because they were perceived as being on the fringes of the ideological spectrum? Perhaps John Kerry lost because he ran a bad campaign?

And perhaps they lost for other reasons. But they didn't lose because they were senators, any more than Richard Nixon lost in 1960 (to a senator!) because he was VP.

Saying senators can't win because a senator hasn't been elected president since 1960 is an abuse of history and statistics. It's as good an argument as "The Chicago Cubs won't win the World Series next year because they haven't won it since 1908." Now, as a Cardinals fan I certainly hope the Cubs won't win, but that's still a bad argument. And maybe there are better arguments for the "No More senators!" club...

"Senators will have their records used against them!" This, too, is true. It's also true of governors, ask Mike Dukakis. Willie Horton, Boston Harbor, the Pledge of Allegience...all those attacks were (however unfairly) based on his record as governor.

Any politician who does anything in public office has a record that can be attacked. And any officeholder who is good enough to be nominated for the presidency should be able to explain their record in a clear, straightforward way. Perhaps a senator's voting history is longer and more confusing than a governor's record...but if the senator has stood consistently on the issues over the years it shouldn't be that hard to explain.

"But governors communicate better than Senators!" This is a blanket statement that isn't true about all senators or all governors. Which of these Democrats was a better communicator: Senator John F. Kennedy or Governor Michael Dukakis?

But you need not reach back to JFK to find a good communicator in the Senate. What about Paul Wellstone or Barack Obama? Senators can be compassionate, honest and eloquent speakers...and governors can give some of the most muddled, confusing explanations you ever heard. (Need I remind you that George W. Bush was once a governor?) The ability to communicate and connect with people is something that is about the individual, not the office.

I've heard it suggested that by living in state capitol rather than Washington D.C. governors somehow are "closer to the people" than senators. Well, I'll grant that physically they are closer to the residents of the state capitol...but most governors live in governor's mansions. Most of "the people" don't live in mansions. Somehow, as a resident of St. Louis, Missouri, I feel that Senator Dick Durbin understands what life is like for me a lot more than Governor Matt Blunt in Jefferson City. (Yeah, I'm kinda cheating because both my senators are horrible...but Durbin grew up in East St. Louis!)

Finally, "Senators aren't leaders, governors are!" This isn't really true either. Most political accomplishments involve leadership by members of both the executive and legislative branches. True, senators can't just point at everything good in their state and take credit for all of it. But they can show leadership by taking bold stands, holding the administration accountable and putting forward new proposals.

As a rather strange example, what is Hillary Clinton doing when she makes statements about video game violence and flag burning that annoy us? She's trying to be a leader! If senators weren't capable of being leaders, no one would care what they say about anything...nor would they bother saying anything.

I don't think the lack of executive experience stops former legislators from being good leaders as presidents: look at Lincoln or Truman. (I don't think anyone, including Truman, would count his time as FDR's VP as "executive experience.")

In conclusion, the presidency is a serious job and, in a way, helping choose your party's presidential nominee is the most important thing you get to do as a political activist. When thinking about whom you'd like to see run in 2008 I think all Democrats should remember the title of Jimmy Carter's 1976 campaign biography: "Why Not the Best?" Look for the person you think would make the best president. And if your answer to the question "Why Not the Best?" is "Well, the conventional wisdom says the Best can't win..." I hope you'll join me in telling the conventional wisdom to go to hell...in a polite way, of course.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 29 Comments :: Post a Comment

real reason to say no to senators (2.00 / 2)

Governors lead and take action, Senators babble on about some bill and vote.

That's all Senator's really can do, every so often they get to grandstand and investigate something, but usually they get so caught up with the sound of their own voice and their own cleverness that they never quite zing the person that is testifying.

Like John Kerry, he couldn't explain how a paper bag works without 3 unnecessary clauses.

by DaveB on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 11:36:20 AM EST

BCCI (none / 0)

Let's recycle rnc spin while we're at it.

BCCI.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BCCI (none / 0)

Kerry has done some great things in his life, and some good things as Senator. But he can't talk like a normal person. He did a better job than Gore in the debates sure, but he just talks too much about nothing.

Look at Slate's Kerryisms for great examples.

by DaveB on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 03:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BCCI (none / 0)

Slate? Please. Let's put it all in perspective. dubya can't talk, let alone think, like a normal person, yet the meme is circulated that he's a "regular guy". He isn't. He's an uncurious fool who has constantly benefited from a life of privilege and access.

So, John Kerry and Al Gore had the benefits of affluence, too? Each made contributions to public service far greater than the current occupant of the White House. That's the talking point we all should be actively circulating.

Instead of pointing that out, let's just continue to uncritically recirculate the rnc talking points, spin, and memes.

John Kerry and Al Gore speak fine, thank you.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BCCI (none / 0)

Please...is that the best you can come up with as a retort, ad hominem attacks?

From my personal opinion and perspective, Kerry talks too much and says too little. Contrast his comments about Bush's speech to Rep. Murtha. Both have been in Congress for decades, both are decorated war veterans, but Murtha's was clear, on point, and damning. Kerry's was better than most of his performances, but every time I try to like Kerry he just talks his way out of a sale.

Kerry and Gore sounded like a product of Washington. Bush isn't a regular guy, but at least he convinced people for a bit that he sounded like one, and Kerry never could do that. Whether having a "regular guy" is better than an smart guy in office is another question. Gore or Kerry or almost anyone would have been a better president than Bush...but that doesn't detract from my point:

stay away from Senators who have passed their expiration date.

by DaveB on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 06:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

^&**(*(h&*((^*(%4!!!!!! (none / 0)

Why the fuck did I not hear those letters come out of Kerry's mouth during the campaign?

Oh, I know...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6262620/site/newsweek/

"You can't talk about that because people think you're talking about the BBC," Bob Shrum, Kerry's top adviser, told one senior staffer. "Why were you investigating British TV?"

gfdjkjkdgjkldghjkl;gfhsdjkhfhjdjkglj;jkl;ghfuckshitmotherfuckerdfjklghgfjkl;hdfksjklbhklgfkkjkl;ARR RRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 06:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hearing about BCCI (none / 0)

Oh, they did, in a a number of places. Of course, our lazy national media didn't (and still doesn't) cover anything which calls into question their preconceived "conventional wisdom".

Search on "BCCI" and "JohnKerry.com". You'll need to look at the cached versions. For instance.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 08:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: real reason to say no to senators (none / 0)

what about Senators who were governor?

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 03:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: real reason to say no to senators (none / 0)

You are talking about Bayh...which is a special case. If a ex-gov still acts and sounds like a governor, then sure I would support him. But if really joins the club of windbags, or goes crazy no thanks. I am thinking of Zell Miller and Bob Graham. Bayh is still basically trading on Daddy, so I really don't see him winning outside his state (that is, nationally).

by DaveB on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 03:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: real reason to say no to senators (none / 0)

from articles and speeches I have read, he refers to himself as a Governor with national security experience.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 04:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

some good points but... (3.00 / 2)

let me first say I sympathize with you, because I cringe when people just repeat the "senators cant win,period" line over and over. I think that shows a lack of thought.

However, there are reasons that governors make better candidates, and I think you may have overlooked them in your post. Here are 3 thoughts that come to mind:

1.While it is true that HW was the only VP in recent history to be elected (and he lost reelection) i think the example supports the polemic against senators as candidates instead of debunk it. The reason I think this is because in the modern american political dynamic senators and vps are somewhat similar in that they are washington insiders.

Yes, pre-Carter governors had a lousy track record. However, political climate may have much to do with this. From FDR up through Watergate, Americans seemed to believe much more in what the republicans have since demonized as "big government". There was a sense that goverment could do good things for people and it was a good idea for an expereinced washington mind to be in the white house. Vietnam, the social chaos of the 60s, and then watergate soured many people on the washington establishment. We all know the common-man-outsider thing is bs, but it has had a hand in electing every president since watergate with the exception of HW. Its not a mistake that all the succesful candidates have tailored themselves to this outsider approach.
You are right to point out that governors also have a political track record. However, the very nature of their job in the executive branch as opposed to the senators legislative role gives them less to shoot at. They do not have to do the horse trading and compromising that often sinks other candidates. While they may take the blame for failures, as the name that signs the bills they are also able to flaunt credit for successes.

It is by no means set in stone that a senator can not go to the white house, but there are legitimate reasons why it is more difficult than for a governor. That said, we should ultimately pick a candidate based on his or her merits.

by dre2k5 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 12:07:36 PM EST

Re: some good points but... (none / 0)

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

First off, regarding the VP thing and the record of governors between FDR and Carter, I wasn't using those trends to make any bigger point than to say that the "No senator has won since 1960" is a bad "argument".

I think Nixon (in '60) and Humphrey were the only incumbent VPs to run in the general election between the Red Fox and HW, though I may be forgetting someone.

You raise a good point about the insider-outsider thing. It may be BS, but it has been effective BS. It was clearly a reason for the success of Carter, Clinton, and Dubya. I only have two comments on it, and I admit that neither are great arguments...heck, the second isn't even an argument at all.

First, I think a senator with a reputation (deserved or not) for being a maverick and a reformer can be portrayed as an outisder, like McCain in 2000. I really don't want this to be a debate about Russ Feingold, but I think he could have the same thing going for him. I think Paul Wellstone could have done it had he run for president in 2000.

The second, I wish Democrats would just call BS what it is and try to raise the level of debate in this country rather than letting the GOP get away with crap. But that's probably only going to happen on "The West Wing", so just forget about it.

As for your third point, I'd have to disagree that governors don't have to do the kind of horse trading and compromise that legislators do. Sometimes public opinion or the legislature forces the executive to sign a bill that they don't like or that has provisions they don't like.

On a more general basis the "buck stops here" appeal of governors cuts both ways: they can't only be held accountable for the good things that happen in their state, they have to take the blame for the bad things too...whether or not those are entirely their fault. For example, Dukakis vetoed that pledge bill becuase an advisory opinion by the state supreme court told him it was unconstitutional...but that's not the story the Republicans told.

That said, I agree with the last line of your post.

by Paul Simon Democrat on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (3.00 / 2)

I wouldn't argue that a senator can't win, but I think you are wrong to argue that the present trend is just a coincidence or something.

Senators have definitive voting records, and these are used against them with great effect. Governors have more vague records. They sign or veto bills, but other positions are much more fluid, and subject to interpretation. Even worse, a bill may need several votes at different parts of the process, and hacks use these procdural votes to say stupid things like "John Kerry voted 123 times to raise taxes" when it might have only been 4 bills, but each required a bunch of votes or something.

Governors are executives and get records that are tied to the performance of their states. Some governors of course get eliminated from presidential contention because their states don't do well (whether this is their fault or not), however when the state does well, they get the majority of the credit for it.

Why? Because they are 1 person, whereas senators are many. Any success the senate has is watered down by 99 other senators and even more so by having a HOR that also has to pass a bill.

Last, don't forget the influence of TV and media spotlight. There are 50 governors to 100 senators, so right away they're at a 2-1 advantage to get any TV time, moreso for big-state governors, and moreso since governors get to make "state of the state" addresses, and do other high profile things (ribbon cuttings, staying executions, running disaster relief operations etc).

I think there are valid reasons to prefer a governor candidate over a senator (all else being equal). If a senator is head-and-shoulders better than any governor on the primary ticket, then I agree we should go with the senator.

Also, it's certainly possible the republicans will run a senator (cough McCain cough) which would certainly level the field (as well as guarantee an end to the no-senator streak).

I thought the comment above about senators being "insiders" was very good too.

by scientician on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:28:40 PM EST

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

"Even worse, a bill may need several votes at different parts of the process, and hacks use these procdural votes to say stupid things like "John Kerry voted 123 times to raise taxes" when it might have only been 4 bills, but each required a bunch of votes or something."

I think that a senator could fairly easily explain his or her way out of this. This goes back to my response to an earlier comment about calling BS what it is. Senators can explain their voting records in a way that people can understand. Just because John Kerry may have failed, doesn't mean all his colleagues will.

"Governors have more vague records. They sign or veto bills, but other positions are much more fluid, and subject to interpretation. "

I don't get this. How is signing or vetoing a bill any less specific than voting for or against a bill? Executives sometimes have to sign bills they don't or that they don't like parts of, and they have to explain this.

How is "Governor X vetoed a bill to give health care to homeless kids" a less effective attack than "Senator Y voted to raise taxes 123 times." Both are damning attacks...and both could be explain away.

Governors can have vague positions about foreign affairs and the military, and I suppose this can be an advantage...although I don't think it should be.

But even where they don't take action governors can make public statements that get them in trouble, look at how Howard Dean's old statements about Medicare and the Iowa Caucuses were brought out against him. Or what about the attack on Governor Dean keeping his records as governor sealed? I don't think governors are significantly less vulnerable to attack than senators.

" Last, don't forget the influence of TV and media spotlight. There are 50 governors to 100 senators, so right away they're at a 2-1 advantage to get any TV time, moreso for big-state governors, and moreso since governors get to make "state of the state" addresses, and do other high profile things (ribbon cuttings, staying executions, running disaster relief operations etc)."

I'm not quite sure about this. In an individual state, the governor may get more attention than the senators, but I don't see how this matters in a presidential primary. Except for the coverage of big state governors (Jeb, Pataki, Ah-nold) I don't think governors have a significent advantage over sentaors in terms of national exposure. I'm pretty sure that, outside of Oklahoma, Russ Feingold or Joe Biden are more well known names than Brad Henry.

I suppose that sometimes a governor running for president can use his duties of office to get media attention, like when Clinton stopped campaigning to go back to Arkansas because there was an execution scheduled. But I think these are rare exceptions. In fact, of the post-1976 governors elected, half of them were former governors.

by Paul Simon Democrat on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

"I think that a senator could fairly easily explain his or her way out of this. This goes back to my response to an earlier comment about calling BS what it is. Senators can explain their voting records in a way that people can understand. Just because John Kerry may have failed, doesn't mean all his colleagues will."

Perhaps 5 or 10% of senators could handle such attacks, but isn't that the point, Governors don't have to deal with this baggage. If he has to "explain" his record to the public, it's already baggage.

I think we essentially agree, it's not impossible for a senator to win, and certainly the senate is a better platform for a presidential run than the HOR, or coming from outside govt altogether, but it isn't BS for anyone to take "electibility" points off a primary candidate for being a senator.

"I don't get this. How is signing or vetoing a bill any less specific than voting for or against a bill? Executives sometimes have to sign bills they don't or that they don't like parts of, and they have to explain this."

It's different because the threat of a veto usually has the effect of removing the part of the legislation a governor dislikes. He also only has to decide yea/nay on bills that reach his desk, meaning that nonsense resolutions like the recent republican one on Iraq designed to fail and create a talking point never reach governors. He has the luxury of a filter - the state legislature and senate. Legislators vote dozens of times more often than governors (counting signing or not signing a bill as "voting").

by scientician on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 09:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (1.00 / 1)

Yeah that is the point once the candidate has to explain something it's too late.

by orin76 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 09:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

"Perhaps 5 or 10% of senators could handle such attacks, but isn't that the point, Governors don't have to deal with this baggage. If he has to "explain" his record to the public, it's already baggage."

But that's the point...governors do have baggage! They have records! They have questionable bills they signed, good bills they vetoed, they have campaign promises they didn't keep, they have stupid things they said on TV shows in Canada, they have a history of lying about being drafted by the Kansas City A's...all candidates have baggage! All candidates are going to have to explain things. Senators are going to have to explain their voting records, and governors will have to explain their prison furlough programs and everything else that goes wrong in their state!

"but it isn't BS for anyone to take "electibility" points off a primary candidate for being a senator."

Personally, I think it is. But, then again, maybe that only bothers me because I think people in our party put too much weight on electability anyway. That's all they think about. They think that by nominating a governor they'll have a candidate immune to criticism. The GOP and the media are going to pick away at whoever we nominate. So let's nominate the best person for the job. Period.

Of course, saying things like that is probably the reason people look at me like I'm crazy. That, or the tinfoil hat I wear...

by Paul Simon Democrat on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 10:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only Senators I would serve are ex- Governor (none / 0)

The first criteria in picking a 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee is previous executive experiece. He or she previously must be a CEO of a corporation. a Military General,a Mayor of a Big City,A Governor.
Regarding the US Senator that are mentioned as Presidential Candidates.
Clinton,Kerry,Edwards,Biden,Bayh and Fiengold)only Evan Bayh is the only US Senator that has executive experience- He was Governor of Indiana from 1988-1996.
Clinton-was a lawyer and a First Lady prior to becoming US Senator.
Kerry- was Lt Governor for two years before becoming Senator . Kerry always played the second banana-
Edwards- was trial lawyer- before geting elected to the US Senate in 1998.
Biden-served most of his career in the US Senate.
Feingold- served in the Wisconsin State legislature before Getting elected to the US Senate.

The potential 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates that have previous executive or managerial experience are
Wesley Clark
Bill Richardson
Evan Bayh
Mark Warner
Tom Vilsack

My other criteria in selecting the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee is foriegn policy/national security experience.
Wesley Clark
Bill Richardson
Evan Bayh

If my criteria also includes political experience- must won or occupied an elected office before running for President. and a No US Senator rule.

Then My top Choice for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Richardson =a Hispanic Governor from a Southwestern State. Served in the US Congress for 15 years,Served as US Ambassador to the UN,and US Energy Secretary.

I would like to see either Barack Obama be Bill Richardson's VP runningmate.
Hispanic Governor from the Southwest as President. a Black US Senator from the Midwest as Vice President.

Democrats should form a Western/Midwestern Strategy.in 2008.

The North East- is a Democratic Bastion
The South is a Republican Bastion.

That leaves us the West and the Midwest. Putting Richardson on the ticket will help Democrats win swing states that have strong Hispanic Populations
1)Arizona
2)Colorado
3)Florida
4)Nevada
5)New Mexico

Obama will help Democrats win swing Midwestern States that have strong Black Population
1)Michigan
2)Pennsylvania
3)Wisconsin
4)Ohio
5)Missouri
-

Since the Republicans political base is White Evangelical Christian voters in the Deep South and the Border Midwestern/Southern States.

The Democratic Parties should form a Black/Hispanic/White Female coalition. in the SouthWestern and Midwestern Region.

by CMBurns on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 04:35:12 PM EST

asdf (none / 0)

this just has to do with using your record against you in a roll call kind of way. As though you vote to just put something to the floor, and you have the advertisments in the corzine campaign such as he voted for higher taxes 133 times etc. PLus on issues that turn out badly, but started okay, like Iraq you dont have to take a stand. For instance, a governor like Mike Huckabee could say in the beginning he was very critical etc and didnt really think it was a great idea and no one could challenge him ebcause he didnt have to vote on it. Same with Vilsack, Warner etc as there are no statements on teh record of their support initially or not. So they can say that they wouldve voted against it, even if they are lying through their teeth.

by yomoma2424 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 04:57:42 PM EST

Re: asdf (none / 0)

Well said.

Potential Democratic Presidential Candidates
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Evan Bayh
Russ Fiengold

voted either for or against the Iraq War Resolution,or voted for or against the Patriot Act. Clinton,Kerry,Edwards,Biden,and Bayh voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act but have been since critical of the War in Iraq and the administrations handling of the Patriot Act. Feingold voted against both IWR and the PA.

But Republicans can portray Feingold as the most Liberal member of the US Senate- The Republican ads will remind voters- If Feingold were in charge- Saddam and Slobodan will still be in power. The FBI will not have the tools to catch Al Quida members.

Democratic Presidential Candidates like
Wesley Clark
Bill Richardson
Mark Warner
Tom Vilsack

did not cast a vote in favor or against the Iraq War Resolution,Patriot Act.

Clark and Richardson's as well as Warner's speechs and positions on Iraq has more to do with strategy rather that whether or not they personally support the Iraq War.

Clark and Richardson have been talking about diplomacy and coalition building. since the start of the Iraq War.

by CMBurns on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is a reason (none / 0)

Look at the recent past. Since JFK, four other senators have run for President on a major party ticket and lost: Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry.

Even in the distant past such senate icons as Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and Bob Taft thirsted for the office and lost. Taft even failed to get the nomination (that's against Ike in 52).

The problem is more than just the voting record. It is the horse trading that makes a senator effective: a legislative and not an executive trait. Ted kennedy has been a fine senator but unlike his brothers (who were less effective in the senate) he was not a great Presidential candidate in 1980.

The record of senators going directly to the White House is thin. John Kennedy, Franklin Pierce and sometimes Harding. None of these guys had much of a record in the senate. Harding IIRC was elected governor as well (I think after his senate term).

Kennedy with 8 years had the longest senate tenure on the direct track (others like LBJ served longer but went through the office of VP).

Does a senate background eliminate a candidate? No. Does it raise a red flag. Yes.

by David Kowalski on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:09:30 PM EST

Re: There is a reason (1.00 / 1)

It just doesn't make hard it makes it almost impossible, and the longer you are in congress or the Senate it becomes harder because your record gets longer, and longer. By the time you have been in the senate or congress atleast 10 years you have probally voted for the same issue 5 or 6 different types, and usually not the same way. Since alot of times there are hundreds of amendments attached to bills, and if you vote againt the bill your tagged at being horrible. This is where Kerry got into trouble the American public doesn't have the attention span to understand that I voted for it because I voted against it means, that one bill was good and the final bill was bad. They just know he sounds like he's saying two different things on the same issue and it confuses them, and Americans don't like to think. So they will go with someone who says the same thing over and over no matter how stupid it is so they don't have to think about an issue

by orin76 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 06:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ted Kennedy's hopes at being president died... (none / 0)

...one July night when he drove his car into a pond.

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 06:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A voting record can be a positive as well as a... (3.00 / 1)

...negative. Somebody with an exceptional voting record, such as Feingold, can make being a senator be a plus and not a minus.

Plus, Feingold talks and acts like a normal dude and not a rich aloof elitist (like Kerry was). Oh, and he wouldn't be stupid enough to hire somebody as dumb as Shrum. His TV ads are the best in the business, and so is his performance in speeches and debates.

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 06:51:15 PM EST

Re: A voting record can be a positive as well as a (1.00 / 1)

If I dug through Orrin Hatch's voting record hard enough I could make him look like Ted Kennedy

by orin76 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A voting record can be a positive as well as a (1.00 / 1)

or for that matter vise Versa

by orin76 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A voting record can be a positive as well as a (1.00 / 1)

Not according to what I understand when he went south.

by orin76 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A voting record can be a positive as well as a (none / 0)

...and not a rich aloof elitist (like Kerry was)...

Did John Kerry personally dis you or family member at some time in the past? Or do you just uncritically repeat the cable news spin generated from the 15 second sound bites the rnc feeds them? I wonder if you think dubya is the kind of person you could drink a beer with at a backyard barbecue (see how those memes work?), even though, as a recovering alcoholic, he wouldn't ever be able to actually drink it (see how one addresses the meme?).

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 08:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

on the flip side (none / 0)

being in congress seems to be a huge plus for the vp slot. looking back over the last three decades:

cheney-11 years in the house, leadership position
gore- served in both chambers of congress
quayle-haha shouldnt matter but he was a senator
bush- served in congress
mondale- senator

some people think this is because campaigns want some kind of balance on the ticket. I suppose that is possible, but I personally think very few people vote based on a the vp candidate. What I think gets these type of people on the bottom half of the ticket is that the guy at the top (in this case 4 out 5 of their bosses were ex governors) realizes he needs someone that has experience steering legislation through congress.

by dre2k5 on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 08:01:52 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.