jbooma Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Curious if in the past if a senator was running for president if he decided to give up the post to put more effort in running for press?? Kerry has been pretty busy in DC lately. He doesn't show in signs on giving up his senate seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Dole quit the Senate, but he was due to retire anyways. I think Goldwater stayed on. Liebermann ran for both Vice President and Senator at the same time. Kerry has missed 87% of the Senate votes this year. His running is good for the GOP in that sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 23, 2004 Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 Originally posted by riggo-toni Kerry has missed 87% of the Senate votes this year. His running is good for the GOP in that sense. :laugh:, he is doing that so he won't change his mind when asked why he voted a certain way :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 last election. a Governor and a VP were running while holding other jobs. Its a sucky part of politics. Both both sides do it. How much time is the President splitting between running and being in Washington or Crawford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 The whole dilema could be sh*tcanned once and for all if we just developed some sensible term limits. Politics should NEVER become a career -- way too tempting for a "public servant" to spend the current term catering to the folks needed to get reelected. Incumbency is a very attractive proposition and it skews a lot of otherwise self-evident decisions. The voters need to stop paying for these shmucks to simultaneously (supposedly) do the job they are paid to do AND campaign for their re-election/next job. It's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigkatt Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Originally posted by jpillian The whole dilema could be sh*tcanned once and for all if we just developed some sensible term limits. Politics should NEVER become a career -- way too tempting for a "public servant" to spend the current term catering to the folks needed to get reelected. Incumbency is a very attractive proposition and it skews a lot of otherwise self-evident decisions. The voters need to stop paying for these shmucks to simultaneously (supposedly) do the job they are paid to do AND campaign for their re-election/next job. It's ridiculous. I couldn't agree more Term Limits would greatly improve our political system. Sadly the Supreme Court ruled several years ago that term limits ae unconstitutional. Unless a future Court reverses this ruling the only way to get term limits will be a constitutional amendment. :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 We have term limits available to us. They are called elections. If people continue to vote for the same politicians, they get what they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 We have term limits available to us. They are called elections. If people continue to vote for the same politicians, they get what they deserve. I agree with you Kilmer. I think we should dump the two term max for President too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Romney (Mass Gov.) called for Kerry's resignation the other day. It was just a political ploy to get him a cushy ambassador job if Bush wins, ala Weld and Cellucci. I don't think there is a problem with it. If there is a close vote, he will be there. FYI, don't bother with the bill was turned down by one vote crap, I'll bring up the roll call if you want me to and show the republicans that voted for the bill to make Kerry look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 That's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about, Chom. If these guys were a little bit more focused on the issues on their plate, rather on their re-election --- or the other guy's re-election -- I think some of these destructive partisan politics would go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Why don't we count how many "working" days Dubya has had on vacation since taking the "President" job. I read he's breaking all of the records in number of vacation days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Define vacation. If you mean working from somewhere other than the White House, you're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Define vacation. If you mean working from somewhere other than the White House, you're probably right. If you say that he can "work" when he's on vacation, than how come the VP Dick had to order the planes to be shot down on 911? Because Bush was in the middle of reading his favorite book, "My Pet Goat" me idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 24, 2004 Author Share Posted June 24, 2004 Originally posted by JackC If you say that he can "work" when he's on vacation, than how come the VP Dick had to order the planes to be shot down on 911? Because Bush was in the middle of reading his favorite book, "My Pet Goat" me idiot you fool bush was with a bunch of elementary kids and didn't want them to get scared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 We have term limits available to us. They are called elections. If people continue to vote for the same politicians, they get what they deserve. And these career politicians get all the help they need from their party and fellow career politicians that a challenger has little chance of winning the election. These "scratch my back now, I'll scratch yours when you're up for re-election" backroom grab-a$$ deals are hurting American taxpayers. Spending bills miraculously come up and include a particular career politician's district at the same time he's up for re-election. The sweaty huddled unwashed aren't smart enough to realize the manipulation for their vote. I support a consitutional term limits. Our forefathers never intended for representatives/senators to spend their life bilking the American people out of billions of dollars. They're vision of political life was that of a burden endured for the good of the country, not a career in which they vote in the best interest of their wallet and secret slush fund or vote in an effort to remain in power or cease power from the opposition party. Career polticians is a large reason this country is where it's at today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I agree with you, but the solution is for the people to use their power and vote them out of office. Ultimately, the people have the power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 To me, that answer just doesn't cut it Kilmer. Most people don't pay attention to politics; therefore the tendency is to re-elect the incumbent. Of course, the likelihood of a constitutional amendment on this thing is absolutely slim to none. Come on -- would these crooks every vote themselves out of any perk? yet alone vote themselves out of a job? I'm not normally a great proponent of populist democracy, but there should be a mechanism that allows for more of a grassroots demand on term limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Then that's the peoples fault. I dont want or think we need Govt to step in and protect people from themselves and their own idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma you fool bush was with a bunch of elementary kids and didn't want them to get scared :1stplace: :ha: That might of been the funniest thing I've read around here in a long long time. I really hope that if asked WHY he sat for whatever amount of time after the 2nd plane crashed into the WTC....he says "you fool!, I was with a bunch of elementary kids and didn't want them to get scared " Classic man....keep it up! :peaceout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 24, 2004 Author Share Posted June 24, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford :1stplace: :ha: That might of been the funniest thing I've read around here in a long long time. I really hope that if asked WHY he sat for whatever amount of time after the 2nd plane crashed into the WTC....he says "you fool!, I was with a bunch of elementary kids and didn't want them to get scared " Classic man....keep it up! :peaceout: or maybe it had to do with they still didn't know if it was a terror attack at the time :doh: you laugh about shooting down a US plane with civillians on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I laugh at that reason. A plane flew into the WTC, even if they didn't know what happened. The 1st thing you'd expect to happen, is the Prez to stand up and walk out of the room. Maybe he'd say "excuse me". I don't see how standing up and walking out....even RUNNING out would scare these kids so badly. All kids do is make sudden movements around each other. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Did it ever occur to those making an issue of this, that after the first plane hit, it was reported that it was a small plane. So I wouldnt expect the Pres to leave. After the 2nd plane hit, it was obvious we were under attack. And as such, the Secret Service dictates when and where the President can go. So it's likely they were clearing the area to get him as fast as possible to AF1 and up in the air . The funny thing isnt that he waited. The funny thing is that the left is trying to spin this into a negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Not as funny as the staying there because of the children. :shutup: Ok, maybe as funny. I agree that its pushed way too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 24, 2004 Author Share Posted June 24, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford I laugh at that reason. A plane flew into the WTC, even if they didn't know what happened. The 1st thing you'd expect to happen, is the Prez to stand up and walk out of the room. Maybe he'd say "excuse me". I don't see how standing up and walking out....even RUNNING out would scare these kids so badly. All kids do is make sudden movements around each other. :2cents: Buff it doesn't matter what our president does, you just won't like it :doh: The entire US was never trained on what to do if a terrorist took a plan in a building, sorry that is the truth. They thought it was an accident, no one knew, why would they get the president for something they didn't know? By the time they found it wasn't they first goal was to get the president to safety. How do you know he didn't tell the VP to give the order? Buff by the way there was a lot more then children there, tv cameras, adults, etc.. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I actually agree with Kilmer partly on this one. When the first plane hit, Everyone in my office thought it was an accident. Unless Bush was told otherwise, I would expect the same reaction. However, I'm sure there can be some debate if he knew otherwise or not, but until that comes out, I don't think any of it is an issue. I mean, what was he going to do, put on his cape and rescue people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.