View Full Version : Obama and McCain...should they resign?
From the Senate? Y'know, since neither are doing the job that we the tax payers are paying them for. Its like me hiring a waitress at my bar. She never comes to work because she is always out interviewing for a new job, but I pay her anyway. Its ridiculous. There should be a law to force resignation of presidential candidates if they hold a public office and are neglecting it to campaign.
The Senator
08-17-2008, 04:17 PM
Both should resign... but McCain definitely isn't going to resign because he would be replaced with a Democrat...
hippie_hunter
08-17-2008, 04:19 PM
I don't think so. They're busy running a very important campaign, not going off for leisure time. Besides, one of them will return to work in the Senate when the election is over.
Tag279
08-17-2008, 04:22 PM
No they should not.
So you guys think that which ever one of them looses should be expunged from the Senate even if they have years left on their terms.
Yes, because they are not going to their job. They are not doing their job. They have both spent the better part of two years campaigning, all the while neglecting the job the tax payers have elected and paid them to do. If they won't do the job, we should have someone who will.
This has been brought up before and I still have the same answer.
Absolutely not.
Tag279
08-17-2008, 04:48 PM
Yes, because they are not going to their job. They are not doing their job. They have both spent the better part of two years campaigning, all the while neglecting the job the tax payers have elected and paid them to do. If they won't do the job, we should have someone who will.
Did you vote for either Obama or McCain for senator in their respective states? If not, should that not be something that the residents of Arizona and Illinois complain about? Aren't they the people that should have the greatest issue with either of them running for POTUS?
Other people in political office have run while holding seats in office. The problem is that in our system it requires an extreme time contribution to run for POTUS
Also candidates must use their own money and raised money for their campaigns to travel and stump on the campaign trail.
imdaly
08-17-2008, 05:40 PM
Nah. I mean, I would hate to think that Obama will lose his Senate seat just because he tried to be President. ;)
Kelly
08-17-2008, 05:52 PM
This campaign has been a long one, it seems that these candidates have been campaiging for the past 4 years.....IMO, they have not been representing their state, they have been representing themselves.
Did you vote for either Obama or McCain for senator in their respective states? If not, should that not be something that the residents of Arizona and Illinois complain about? Aren't they the people that should have the greatest issue with either of them running for POTUS?
That argument would be perfectly valid if they were a state representative or state senator or governor. As it is, they are not. They are UNITED STATES Senators. My tax dollars go to their pay checks even though they represent Arizona or Illinois, so nice try.
Other people in political office have run while holding seats in office. The problem is that in our system it requires an extreme time contribution to run for POTUS
Exactly. It is one thing to run a state campaign while in office. No other job requires to launch a 3 year long nation wide campaign.
Also candidates must use their own money and raised money for their campaigns to travel and stump on the campaign trail.
They still get a pay check for a job they are not doing.
This has been brought up before and I still have the same answer.
Absolutely not.
Care to elaborate? I believe last time you said that the two candidates once the primaries are settled should step down from their current office.
Nah. I mean, I would hate to think that Obama will lose his Senate seat just because he tried to be President. ;)
So what if it were John McCain and Obama were a former Senator? You'd be cool with it then?
Maybe the question should be: Can/should we reform our system of choosing a president? Not: Should one the countless side effects of our current system's inefficiency be marginally altered?
Spider-Bite
08-17-2008, 06:35 PM
No. They were elected by the people of their district. It's probably a safe bet that those voters don't want them to resign.
Spider-Bite
08-17-2008, 06:36 PM
Care to elaborate? I believe last time you said that the two candidates once the primaries are settled should step down from their current office.
So what if it were John McCain and Obama were a former Senator? You'd be cool with it then?
how could former senators who have already retired, resign?
Addendum
08-17-2008, 06:39 PM
Obama's last vote in the Senate was July 9th.
McCain's last vote in the Senate was April 8th.
However, this is nothing new when a Senator is campaigning to be President
Tag279
08-17-2008, 06:44 PM
This campaign has been a long one, it seems that these candidates have been campaiging for the past 4 years.....IMO, they have not been representing their state, they have been representing themselves.
Consider that the Constitution says that for someone to be President he or she must be a natural born citizen that has attained the age of 35.
Obama is already being dogged for not being in the senate very long. Imagine if John Q. Public ran for President he wouldn't have a chance.
Being a sitting senator, rep, or governor is almost essential.
Spider-Bite
08-17-2008, 06:52 PM
Consider that the Constitution says that for someone to be President he or she must be a natural born citizen that has attained the age of 35.
Obama is already being dogged for not being in the senate very long. Imagine if John Q. Public ran for President he wouldn't have a chance.
Being a sitting senator, rep, or governor is almost essential.
A very good point!
Kelly
08-17-2008, 07:05 PM
Consider that the Constitution says that for someone to be President he or she must be a natural born citizen that has attained the age of 35.
Obama is already being dogged for not being in the senate very long. Imagine if John Q. Public ran for President he wouldn't have a chance.
Being a sitting senator, rep, or governor is almost essential.
What does that have to do with my post......????
If John/Jane Q. Public ran for office, he/she might have to quit their job, but they wouldn't miss days and days of work that they were elected to in the first place.....
So again, not sure what that has to do with my post...
The Senator
08-17-2008, 07:26 PM
Considering these people rarely take time out of their schedule to vote on an issue in the Senate, unless it pertains to a hot-button issue in the presidential campaign, I see no reason why they should stay in office. They are elected to represent their state's best interests, but if they are not working in the interest of the state then why should they continue to hold a seat which is all but vacant? They need to at least step aside while they are running a national campaign and let someone assume their duties temporarily. Especially when you consider the type of issues we face here domestically today, such as energy crises, economic downfall and the war in Iraq. Illinois and Arizona are two of this country's biggest states, both states are being crippled by the economy's downward slope and neither candidate is in the Senate trying to alleviate the pain of their constituents. They are not doing what they were elected to do.
As much as Bob Dole annoys the hell out of me, I can at least give him credit for stepping aside when he ran for President... and he was Senate Majority Leader, a post he could have kept for years had he stayed on...
The Senator
08-17-2008, 07:27 PM
Consider that the Constitution says that for someone to be President he or she must be a natural born citizen that has attained the age of 35.
Obama is already being dogged for not being in the senate very long. Imagine if John Q. Public ran for President he wouldn't have a chance.
Being a sitting senator, rep, or governor is almost essential.
Well, maybe Obama should have waited four to eight years before he decided to run this fish out of water campaign? :huh:
Addendum
08-17-2008, 07:31 PM
So prior to this year's election, no other Senator that was running for president missed a vote in the Senate?
Kelly
08-17-2008, 07:35 PM
So prior to this year's election, no other Senator that was running for president missed a vote in the Senate?
I'm sure they did, but we didn't have a forum to talk about them......:yay:
And, BTW, I didn't like back then either......I was pissed that Bush was gone as much as he was.......
Addendum
08-17-2008, 07:38 PM
Once a senator misses an entire year of senate voting while running for president, then I'll care.
Kelly
08-17-2008, 07:40 PM
Once a senator misses an entire year of senate voting while running for president, then I'll care.
At your job, would they allow you to take off a few months and not care?
Arkady Rossovich
08-17-2008, 07:45 PM
No. Because that's how it is. You can never have a Politician who is truely for you.
Spider-Bite
08-17-2008, 07:49 PM
At your job, would they allow you to take off a few months and not care?
well in this instance the employers are the voters. If they feel ripped off than whoever loses the election wont get reelected. However, considering the fact that the voters who elected these senators probably want them to win the presidency, chances are they are perfectly fine with them being on the road to campaign, because they probably want their candidate to win. And if their candidate wins than they will be served better than they otherwise would.
Basically if your employer thought you missing a bunch of work to perform other work, was in the best interest of his or her business, than your damn right they allow them to take a few months off.
These guys were elected because people wanted them to have power in the first place.
And you know if their vote is crucial to the outcome of a bill, than they will actually show up and vote. Right now the senate is almsot a complete tie, so nothing gets passed anyways. So these two voting or not voting has no effect anyways.
Addendum
08-17-2008, 07:51 PM
At your job, would they allow you to take off a few months and not care?
If I save up all my vacation time and use it in one block, it'd be a couple months.
But then it doesn't matter since I'm not running for office
The Senator
08-17-2008, 07:55 PM
well in this instance the employers are the voters. If they feel ripped off than whoever loses the election wont get reelected. However, considering the fact that the voters who elected these senators probably want them to win the presidency, chances are they are perfectly fine with them being on the road to campaign, because they probably want their candidate to win. And if their candidate wins than they will be served better than they otherwise would.
Basically if your employer thought you missing a bunch of work to perform other work, was in the best interest of his or her business, than your damn right they allow them to take a few months off.
These guys were elected because people wanted them to have power in the first place.
And you know if their vote is crucial to the outcome of a bill, than they will actually show up and vote. Right now the senate is almsot a complete tie, so nothing gets passed anyways. So these two voting or not voting has no effect anyways.
Actually, it does.
I can recall a few instances where my Senator got pissed off because Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd were not on the floor of the senate to vote on a bill which was about to be filibustered by the Republicans. The Senate is not a guaranteed tie; on some issues, several Republicans cross party lines and side with the Dems, but in the Senate, if they cannot reach 60 votes, a bill is defeated on the floor of the Senate and there is nothing which can be done about it. I forget what the bill was, something about boating emissions or fair pay, but the Democrats were three votes shy of thwarting the filibuster in the Senate. Three votes shy, and Clinton, Biden, Obama and Dodd were out playing Presidential candidate in late December.
Spider-Bite
08-17-2008, 08:05 PM
Actually, it does.
I can recall a few instances where my Senator got pissed off because Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd were not on the floor of the senate to vote on a bill which was about to be filibustered by the Republicans. The Senate is not a guaranteed tie; on some issues, several Republicans cross party lines and side with the Dems, but in the Senate, if they cannot reach 60 votes, a bill is defeated on the floor of the Senate and there is nothing which can be done about it. I forget what the bill was, something about boating emissions or fair pay, but the Democrats were three votes shy of thwarting the filibuster in the Senate. Three votes shy, and Clinton, Biden, Obama and Dodd were out playing Presidential candidate in late December.
Did Bush express any thoughts on vetoing it? If not that would be a good example of them not doing their job, and the media would be right to criticize them for it, not because I want them harmed by the media, but because it would serve as a warning during future presidential races to candidates.
Had I been an advisor I would have advised my candidate to show up and then criticize the others for not showing up. although I don't think it would make that much of a difference.
The Senator
08-17-2008, 08:21 PM
I'm sure they did, but we didn't have a forum to talk about them......:yay:
And, BTW, I didn't like back then either......I was pissed that Bush was gone as much as he was.......
Bush was a Senator :huh:
Cosmic
08-17-2008, 08:38 PM
Should Obama and McCain resign from the Senate?
No.
Well, maybe Obama should have waited four to eight years before he decided to run this fish out of water campaign? :huh:
I've always been disappointed with Obama's early go at the office. I'd hoped he'd take more time in the Senate, be the charismatic running mate, and then eventually run himself.
Kelly
08-17-2008, 09:01 PM
Bush was a Senator :huh:
*sighs*
Care to elaborate? I believe last time you said that the two candidates once the primaries are settled should step down from their current office.
I believe you have me confused with someone else. I have always said that the candidates should not be made to step down simply because they decided to run for the presidency.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.