Yeah... I think it's sad that someone can earn "hero" status by doing what the fark they're supposed to be doing.

Ken Salazar of Colorado good guy from a very nice family. I like his brother John (p) better. But I plan of supporting both of them as they come up for reelection.

What a bunch of douche bags. Why can't these bastards do their jobs? Why is everyone surprised that voter turnout is crap when our Senators can't even be bothered to turn up for votes either?

Russ Feingold doesn't surprise me.
Bob Casey Jr. however, thats a pleasant surprise that he's on that list.

good 'ol Max!

? Is it opposite day?

cambie: What a bunch of douche bags. Why can't these bastards do their jobs? Why is everyone surprised that voter turnout is crap when our Senators can't even be bothered to turn up for votes either?

I wonder how many of them missed, say, 1 or 2 votes, though... kind of like everyone takes a sick day/mental health day here and there.

I keep thinking of Senators who are running for President, though. How are they possibly doing their job? It's like being at work, in front of your boss, browsing HotJobs while he can see... only most people would be held accountable for that.

serpent_sky:

I wonder how many of them missed, say, 1 or 2 votes, though... kind of like everyone takes a sick day/mental health day here and there.

I keep thinking of Senators who are running for President, though. How are they possibly doing their job? It's like being at work, in front of your boss, browsing HotJobs while he can see... only most people would be held accountable for that.

True on your first point. I'd be interested to see this as well.

Second point: I totally agree. I saw an article not too far back that showed the amount of times Hillary and Barak have been absent during the campaigning, and neither of them are showing up much.

cambie:
True on your first point. I'd be interested to see this as well.
It just seems unfair to paint the ones who barely darken the doors with someone who missed 1-2 votes due to a legitimate reason, or because say, they were voting on something that had a screwy rider attached to it and to vote "no" would look bad.


Second point: I totally agree. I saw an article not too far back that showed the amount of times Hillary and Barak have been absent during the campaigning, and neither of them are showing up much.

How could they? They're traveling the country, seeking their next job, and basically abandoning their current jobs.

serpent_sky: How are they possibly doing their job?

They aren't. Personally, I think, if you hold a seat in Congress, you should be forbidden from running for any executive job- President or Vice.

You have a job. For most of us, it's very hard to get our employer to give us time off to interview for another job. I don't see why politicians should get treated any differently. If anything, we should hold them to a higher, more difficult standard.

//I also think elected officials should bow whenever they are passed by a constituent.

I will take the contrarian view: any senator who makes it to all the votes is not doing it right.

You people do realize, I hope, that a great many of these votes are meaningless bullshiat stuff?

This also means there's a ninety per cent chance that one of YOUR senators has missed a vote. So do the right thing, and vote against them next time they run. The main problem with our government -- well, one of the main problems -- is the incredible return rate of incumbents to office. Everyone complains, and then everyone votes the rascals right back in.

oldebayer: I will take the contrarian view: any senator who makes it to all the votes is not doing it right.

You people do realize, I hope, that a great many of these votes are meaningless bullshiat stuff?

This also means there's a ninety per cent chance that one of YOUR senators has missed a vote. So do the right thing, and vote against them next time they run. The main problem with our government -- well, one of the main problems -- is the incredible return rate of incumbents to office. Everyone complains, and then everyone votes the rascals right back in.

That's pretty much what I came here to say. The ones that miss a whole bunch of votes piss me off, but the ones who are there 70-80% of the time don't bother me. There's a lot more to being in Congress than what goes on in the actual chamber. In fact very little actually goes in the House/Senate chambers any more, which is a shame, but the way it is. The outcome of the vast, vast majority of floor votes are already known. The main purpose of getting your individual Congresscritters to vote as much as possible should be to force them to take a stand on the issues in question, not "so they're doing their job".

t3knomanser: serpent_sky: How are they possibly doing their job?

They aren't. Personally, I think, if you hold a seat in Congress, you should be forbidden from running for any executive job- President or Vice.

You have a job. For most of us, it's very hard to get our employer to give us time off to interview for another job. I don't see why politicians should get treated any differently. If anything, we should hold them to a higher, more difficult standard.

//I also think elected officials should bow whenever they are passed by a constituent.

Why couldn't you say the same thing about anyone holding office as a Governor? A person holding any political office, in fact. What you're saying is that all Presidential candidates should have to be totally out of the loop for at least two years.

No, this isn't spiffy.

I'll be the first partisan to mention that only 3 of the 10 were Republicans. I'll also mention that I'm surprised that even 3 of them were on the list. I'll now step back and allow the stupid people to assault me.

Churchill2004: Why couldn't you say the same thing about anyone holding office as a Governor?

A governor at least has relevant experience. Electing a senator to the executive branch is roughly like drafting a baseball pitcher to be your quarterback. Just because both tasks involve throwing, doesn't mean the skills carry over.

The other core difference is that Congressional seats are Federal seats. Even if that's not my senator, they still work for me. A governor works for their state. If my state governor wanted to run for President, I'd be fine with that- if they stepped down.

What I can't stand is that these people abandon their post and then have their seat waiting for them when they get back. Screw that. If you don't like your job, quit before shoving the fact that you're looking for a new one in my face.

t3knomanser: A governor at least has relevant experience.

So? Nothing can "prepare" someone for the Presidency. We've had great Presidents come from Congress, and we've had crappy ex-Governors as Presidents. Besides, your point wasn't about the mythical "experience" necessary, it was about how they're skirting their job duties.

t3knomanser: he other core difference is that Congressional seats are Federal seats. Even if that's not my senator, they still work for me.

No more than Denmark's Ambassador to the UN works for you.

t3knomanser: What I can't stand is that these people abandon their post and then have their seat waiting for them when they get back.

They're not "abandoning their post". Most Presidential candidates still show up for at least 60-70% of votes, which isn't much worse than the rest of Congress.

This makes me sad.

Perhaps I should run for office.

No, I don't like people and they aren't likely to like me.

(likeylikilike)

I resign from my hypothetical office in despair over the current state of affairs.

Churchill2004

No more than Denmark's Ambassador to the UN works for you.

That's an extremely bad comparison.

Churchill2004:
They're not "abandoning their post". Most Presidential candidates still show up for at least 60-70% of votes, which isn't much worse than the rest of Congress.

Appeal to "common practice" does not make it OK to not show up for votes in congress.

Feingold, one of the Senators named, is the only Senator I still have any real respect for.

oldebayer: You people do realize, I hope, that a great many of these votes are meaningless bullshiat stuff?

well, then i'd say the problem is just that fact.

but either way, bullshiat or not, these people were not elected to skip out on the job.

And we pay them 100,000 or so bucks a piece, as well as give them great health care, and they can't bother to show up.

Obdicut: Churchill2004

No more than Denmark's Ambassador to the UN works for you.

That's an extremely bad comparison.

Not with regards to the claim he was making. Congresscritters "work for" the people who elect them, not the American people as a whole.

Otherwise Just Fine: Churchill2004:
They're not "abandoning their post". Most Presidential candidates still show up for at least 60-70% of votes, which isn't much worse than the rest of Congress.

Appeal to "common practice" does not make it OK to not show up for votes in congress.

I still haven't seen anyone explain why missing votes whose outcome is already known is a bad thing as long it's not done excessively.

dont they only work 3 days a week anyway? They cant show up 3 farking days a week???

I think even Drew works harder than that!

I make it a practice to never re-elect any of my people if they spend time campaigning for a higher position. I voted for them to watch my interests, etc, not to seek greater glory.

/not sure why so many vote for someone who doesn't like his or her job.

My Senator was present to vote that the week of March 3rd be proclaimed "change the oil in your lawn mower week." YAY!!!!!!

7 Democrats
2 RINOs
1 Republican

Pay 'em proportional to their voting rate

Hey... they've got to make sure they make it on time for meetings with lobbyists. You know, PRIORITIES PEOPLE!!!

Churchill2004

Not with regards to the claim he was making. Congresscritters "work for" the people who elect them, not the American people as a whole.

Well, you're entirely obliterating the very important distinction between senators and representatives, for one thing. For another, you're ignoring their oath to support the constitution above all else. For another thing, the ambassador to the UN is unelected. For another thing, the UN is not a governmental body; it's an association of governmental bodies.

Analogies usually can't help but be wrong.

In this case, the reason I'm taking issue with your analogy is that it makes the role of congress, and votes in congress, distorted. While we don't know the nature of all the votes people missed-- and some of them may be totally trivial-- I know most congresspeople intentionally miss votes on difficult subjects, or ones that don't directly affect their chances of being reelected. This is a violation of their oaths, and I respect those who take the oaths seriously.

Public power is a hell of a thing to have, and I prefer those wielding it to approach it seriously.

No, I don't like people and they aren't likely to like me.

(likeylikilike)


I'd run for office too but I hate people. Well, really I hate being with people in person, on the internet is ok. Well, really I like being with people in person but I just don't like being around a bunch of dumbasses, they remind me too much of myself.
Come to think about it, I actually like people the problem is that they don't like me. They don't like me because I don't like them and I don't like them because they don't like me, dumbasses.

In some cases, I can understand if you have to miss a vote. Like if you're sick or something and it's all bullshiat post-office namings the next few days. (Presidential ambitions basically force absences as well. That is, unless you don't want to be considered a 'serious' candidate.) It's a nice designation to have, but missing out isn't the 'OMG not doing their job' that some people might think.

Though Clair Engle showed up once in spite of a stroke.

Senators who only show up for some of the votes are leaving the naming of government buildings to other people.

Oh, wait, scratch that. Not stroke. Brain cancer. He broke the filibuster on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by pointing to his eye (to signify "aye"). Died a month and a half later.

It's not a job, it's a club for rich white boys (with a handful of exceptions).

The farked thing is the only way to change this is to vote the lazy bastards out but that will never happen. Look at Lieberman; he was a monumental bozo who should have been voted out but he got reelected because he was the incumbent.

This country has been destroyed by getting people to hate self governing, that it's too hard or too boring or not worth their time to make sure their government works properly. They accept bad government then wonder why government runs so badly.

Edwards is right in that the first step is to get the dirty money out of politics. They spend too much time now whoring for the next campaign dollar and not enough time fixing the problems facing us all.

Do senators have real work to do in their home states too? (And not just ribbon-cutting stuff)
Because it would be quite useless to travel across the country for a useless vote like non-binding resolutions.

On the other hand, if they skip votes because they are in their Washington office being bought by lobbies/banging the intern/taking a nap, then they should be fired.

/Not American so I don't know what Senators really do.

By the way, I must ask: what kind of position ARE you allowed to hold while you run for President? Because surely the candidate shouldn't be completely unemployed at the time.

Obdicut: Well, you're entirely obliterating the very important distinction between senators and representatives, for one thing.

Both are elected. Representatives by districts, Senators by states. Before that, Senators were elected by state legislatures, which in my opinion was a much better arrangement.

Obdicut: For another, you're ignoring their oath to support the constitution above all else.

Which has nothing to do with the question at hand. "The Constitution" does not mean "The American People".

Obdicut: For another thing, the ambassador to the UN is unelected.

Moot point. Senators used to be unelected.

Obdicut: For another thing, the UN is not a governmental body; it's an association of governmental bodies.

The United States is also an association of governmental bodies (the states)- it just happens to have some actual authority delegated to it.

Obdicut: In this case, the reason I'm taking issue with your analogy is that it makes the role of congress, and votes in congress, distorted. While we don't know the nature of all the votes people missed-- and some of them may be totally trivial-- I know most congresspeople intentionally miss votes on difficult subjects, or ones that don't directly affect their chances of being reelected.

I agree that's bad. I'd be interested to see what exactly the breakdown on missed votes as far as what % of it was stuff the Congresscritter refused to take a position on.

Obdicut: This is a violation of their oaths, and I respect those who take the oaths seriously.

It's not unconstitutional, so it's not a violation of their oaths. That's all their oaths bound them to.

Befuddled

A large part of why Lieberman (now an Independent) won re-election is because the Republicans endorsed him, refused to put up a good opponent or endorse the one they had, and the media didn't take much notice of the official Republican either. I agree with your general point but the story of Lieberman's re-election is really bizarre and farked up. It's not purely about incumbency, it's about a supposed moderate with some favored status in both parties and therefore cross-over appeal winning over a newbie liberal and a Republican nobody noticed.

Befuddled: Edwards is right in that the first step is to get the dirty money out of politics. They spend too much time now whoring for the next campaign dollar and not enough time fixing the problems facing us all.

"Getting money of out politics" is a fool's errand. Money is fungible. It's impossible to stop people getting money from Point A to Point B, no matter how many hurdles you try to point in the way. You should insist on openness and transparency, but "getting money out of politics" is impossible.

Plus, almost all of these "campaign finance reform" plans involve unconstitutionally banning everyone except the candidate's official campaigns from advocating for someone.

Churchill2004: You should insist on openness and transparency, but "getting money out of politics" is impossible.

Not when referring specifically to campaigns, as Befuddled was referring to. Publicly financed elections could do a lot to that end.

Shaggy_C: Not when referring specifically to campaigns

Yes, it is. As long as you have any way for private individuals to donate. Which brings us to...

Shaggy_C: Publicly financed elections could do a lot to that end.

Which would rightfully be struck down by the Supreme Court, at least if there wasn't the option to opt out.

That also ignores the whole "banning everyone else from mentioning candidates" thing.

Churchill2004: Which would rightfully be struck down by the Supreme Court, at least if there wasn't the option to opt out.

Where does the constitution mention campaigns at all? All it references are the dates of elections. I don't see how such a rule would be perceived as unconstitutional; if anything, it would be a 10th amendment issue, meaning that it would be a right of the states to regulate.

Shaggy_C: Where does the constitution mention campaigns at all?

Exactly.



But the Supreme Court wouldn't strike it down on that basis (they unfortunately "living Constitution"-ed the Tenth out of existence a long time ago), they'd strike it down because the to give money to people in exchange for them advocating a certain viewpoint, while not "free speech" in and of itself, is an inseperable corollary of free speech.

Here are the full voting records:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/vote-missers/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

All the presidential candidates are at the bottom of the list.
Only 3 people have voted less then John McCain, two dead people and a person who had a brain hemorrhage.

FTFA: Wisconsin Democratic Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold were two of 10 senators with perfect voting attendance records last year..

The eight other senators with 100 percent voting records are Democrats Max Baucus of Montana, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Harry Reid of Nevada, Ken Salazar of Colorado and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Worth putting their names up in virtual ink, methinks.

Gotta respect Russ.

Feingold is finest kind, good as gold.

Meh to the rest with the exception of Harry Reid.

Double Meh to Harry.

/Nobody ruin this special moment by asking how many of them actually read wot percentage of the bills they were voting on.

/Story is already depressing enuff, thank yew verra much.

Churchill2004: to give money to people in exchange for them advocating a certain viewpoint, while not "free speech" in and of itself, is an inseperable corollary of free speech.

But this isn't the same thing as 'advocating a viewpoint'. You're making it sound like a campaign is the exact same thing as going up on stage just for to make a speech - it's not. You're actively pursuing election to a public office. Just as I can stand up on that stage and lie to no end in front of people, I cannot do so during a low-level government job interview without consequence. There's already different free speech rules out there dependent on time and place; why should the financing of campaigns be any different?

Setzer42: Only 3 people have voted less then John McCain, two dead people and a person who had a brain hemorrhage.

In McCains defense he DID spend an awful lot of time shopping fer bargoons in Baghdad.

C'mon "5 rugs for 5 bucks". Who wouldn't miss out on a whack of votes fer THOSE kind of deals?




/Admittedly, when you got over 100 members of the Praetorian Guard behind you glowering and pointedly showing off their weaponry it DOES help with the whole "haggling" proccess.