PDA

View Full Version : Should you have to resign elected office when running for President?


a1na2
02-26-2008, 05:41 PM
When Bob Dole (the real one) ran for president he resigned his senate seat and devoted his time to the campaign. McCain, Clinton and Obama have all shirked their responsibility to the Americans they represent by not being present for business in the Senate.

IMO it would be an honorable thing to do to show your commitment to what you are aspiring to do.

Taco John
02-26-2008, 05:41 PM
No.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 05:43 PM
No.

Please explain your position. You are happy to pay them to not do their job while they are on the campaign trail?

What a loser!

Logical
02-26-2008, 05:45 PM
No, we could not even get the poor candidates we do now if that became law.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 05:49 PM
No, we could not even get the poor candidates we do now if that became law.

That's an exceptionally poor state that this country is left in. What it tells me is that we don't have anyone that wants to sacrifice to serve as the president.

If they feel that they are good enough to get elected to the congress or senate in the first place they should feel reasonably secure that they could be re-elected should they lose the presidential election.

Mr. Kotter
02-26-2008, 05:51 PM
No, one need not resign from Congress to run for President IMO. If a candidates constituency supports a run for the office, as most seem to....who are we to say they can't?

It's not as if each member of Congress doesn't have a fully equiped and capable staff to carry out their responsibilities, you know. And, of course, on major matters....candidates still have as much involvement and influence as they choose to have.

If they do a lousy job and tick off voters, they'll pay at the next election.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 05:57 PM
No, one need not resign from Congress to run for President IMO. If a candidates constituency supports a run for the office, as most seem to....who are we to say they can't?

It's not as if each member of Congress doesn't have a fully equiped and capable staff to carry out their responsibilities, you know. And, of course, on major matters....candidates still have as much involvement and influence as they choose to have.

If they do a lousy job and tick off voters, they'll pay at the next election.

Unless I've lost all I learned in Government classes the staff cannot vote on the bills being considered.

By running and not having the balls to resign your seat you are admitting that you are not really considering that you have a chance to win. I think that voters would see more sincerity in a candidate that gives up all to get elected.

BucEyedPea
02-26-2008, 05:59 PM
The less time any of them are in the Senate making laws to run our lives the better off we are. JMO

a1na2
02-26-2008, 06:05 PM
The less time any of them are in the Senate making laws to run our lives the better off we are. JMO

Unfortunately that is exactly what you are electing them to do.

I'm guessing that you will be happier with one of them in the whitehouse?

NewChief
02-26-2008, 06:53 PM
That's an exceptionally poor state that this country is left in. What it tells me is that we don't have anyone that wants to sacrifice to serve as the president.

If they feel that they are good enough to get elected to the congress or senate in the first place they should feel reasonably secure that they could be re-elected should they lose the presidential election.

Except for the fact that once you run for the Presidency, psychos start coming out of the woodwork and claiming you're a Muslim trojan horse or that you're a serial rapist and such.

Maybe that's why. Of course, you wouldn't know anything about that.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 06:59 PM
Except for the fact that once you run for the Presidency, psychos start coming out of the woodwork and claiming you're a Muslim trojan horse or that you're a serial rapist and such.

Maybe that's why. Of course, you wouldn't know anything about that.

I"ll probably regret this but, WTF are you talking about?

NewChief
02-26-2008, 07:05 PM
I"ll probably regret this but, WTF are you talking about?


In the quoted post, you bemoaned the state of America in which people don't want to run for the Presidency without relinquishing their current jobs. I merely pointed out some instances, some old some current, in which you've likely contributed to that "exceptionally poor state that this country is left in" in which no one wants to "sacrifice" to run for the Presidency.

WoodDraw
02-26-2008, 07:11 PM
No, but their constituency should be allowed to vote them out when they come up for reelection if they aren't happy with their performance.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 07:15 PM
In the quoted post, you bemoaned the state of America in which people don't want to run for the Presidency without relinquishing their current jobs. I merely pointed out some instances, some old some current, in which you've likely committed to that "exceptionally poor state that this country is left in" in which no one wants to "sacrifice" to run for the Presidency.

I'm guessing that you have had more to drink tonight than I have. Your string of commentary makes little sense.

My point is that should a senator or congressman run for the office of president they should IMO dedicate themselves to the task at hand rather than sharing their loyalties between what they want and what they have. The comment regarding the poor state that the country is left in was made by someone else and seemingly on another thread.

If you aren't dedicated to serving as president you keep your old seat, if you are dedicated you resign and win or lose you know that you have done your best.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 07:17 PM
No, but their constituency should be allowed to vote them out when they come up for reelection if they aren't happy with their performance.

Or lack of performance over the past 12 months.

As I stated earlier, the only person I remember having that dedication was Bob Dole when he ran and lost.

WoodDraw
02-26-2008, 07:19 PM
Or lack of performance over the past 12 months.

As I stated earlier, the only person I remember having that dedication was Bob Dole when he ran and lost.

Can we kick out a President for lack of performance based on a year too? ;)

NewChief
02-26-2008, 07:21 PM
I'm guessing that you have had more to drink tonight than I have. Your string of commentary makes little sense.

My point is that should a senator or congressman run for the office of president they should IMO dedicate themselves to the task at hand rather than sharing their loyalties between what they want and what they have. The comment regarding the poor state that the country is left in was made by someone else and seemingly on another thread.

If you aren't dedicated to serving as president you keep your old seat, if you are dedicated you resign and win or lose you know that you have done your best.

You can dissemble all you want, but I quoted YOU not someone else. It appears that your arguments are the ones that get mixed. If you want to argue about split loyalties that is one thing, but you clearly used that as a platform to whine about our elected officials while you simultaneously partake (within other active threads at this very moment) in attacks that are clearly part of the "poor state" (once again, your choice of words, quoted from your post in this thread) that would contribute to people being hesitant to run for the Presidency. You know, attacks like insinuating that someone is a covert Muslim agent.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 07:24 PM
You can dissemble all you want, but I quoted YOU not someone else. It appears that your arguments are the ones that get mixed. If you want to argue about split loyalties that is one thing, but you clearly used that as a platform to whine about our elected officials while you simultaneously partake (within other active threads at this very moment) in attacks that are clearly part of the "poor state" (once again, your choice of words, quoted from your post in this thread) that would contribute to people being hesitant to run for the Presidency. You know, attacks like insinuating that someone is a covert Muslim agent.

I didn't insinuate that, I basically pointed out that nobody knows where he is coming from. In the same light you are an unknown quantity on this board. You could actually be OBL and nobody would know here.

Get a grip dude.

Different streams of thought are typical in different threads. I'm sure you didn't read every post in every thread you referred to to find out what direction from which the comments came.

irishjayhawk
02-26-2008, 07:27 PM
I would like to point out that McCain has been the worst in this regard and Hillary in a close second. I remember a story recently about the Patriot Act/FISA issue going into the senate and the only one of the three candidates to vote was Obama.

The less time any of them are in the Senate making laws to run our lives the better off we are. JMO

Have to agree.

No, but their constituency should be allowed to vote them out when they come up for reelection if they aren't happy with their performance.

Sadly, and someone please give me the name of this "effect", people are always pissed at Congress but never pissed at their representative. Therefore, incumbents are virtually impossible to beat.

Adept Havelock
02-26-2008, 07:40 PM
Should you have to resign elected office when running for President?

No.

Aside from the fact it's spectacularly ignorant to expect a sitting President to resign his (elected) office when running for a second term, it's not been much of a problem for the legislature for 200+ years. I see no reason to change that policy now.


If they do a lousy job and tick off voters, they'll pay at the next election.

Precisely.

The less time any of them are in the Senate making laws to run our lives the better off we are. JMO

I couldn't agree more.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 07:42 PM
I think so. I mean just earlier someone mentioned that one of our candidates chairs a committee that hasn't even met since he began chairing it because he's been running for president since day 1 in the senate. That's pretty ridiculous. If you don't have any intention to make the office a priority then resign the office.

WoodDraw
02-26-2008, 07:42 PM
Sadly, and someone please give me the name of this "effect", people are always pissed at Congress but never pissed at their representative. Therefore, incumbents are virtually impossible to beat.

Generally true, although I don't have a problem with them liking McCain or Obama; I'd love a Senator like either of them.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 07:43 PM
No. Aside from the fact it's spectacularly ignorant to expect a sitting President to resign his office when running for a second term, it's not been much of a problem for 200+ years. I see no reason to change that now.

I'm guessing that logic is not part of your gig.

I actually figured you had more on the ball than that.

Did you miss the times I mentioned in passing senators and congressmen?

:rolleyes:

Adept Havelock
02-26-2008, 07:48 PM
I'm guessing that logic is not part of your gig.

I actually figured you had more on the ball than that.

Did you miss the times I mentioned in passing senators and congressmen?

:rolleyes:

If that's the question you wanted answered, perhaps that's the question you should have asked. :shrug:

It's hardly my fault your command of the English Language is insufficient to the task. LMAO

Furthermore, It's not my logic that's in question when you're the one who didn't consider that the question you posted would also come into play with a President's second term. ;)

Even so, I answered the question you didn't ask (but I inferred you meant) as well.

That's just the kind of wonderful guy I am. PBJ PBJ PBJ

Have a nice night, Tom.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 07:55 PM
If that's the question you wanted answered, maybe that's the question you should have asked.

It's not my fault your command of the English Language is insufficient to the task. LMAO

Obviously you can't read American English either, or you would have noticed I answered the question you didn't ask (but I inferred you meant) as well.

That's just the kind of wonderful guy I am. PBJ PBJ PBJ

Should I be impressed? :rolleyes:

I'm not.:(

It's probably a good thing that I quoted you before you edited your post to make the statement. My grasp of the English language is not the best in the world, but your understanding of what you read is at best on par with what I do understand.

I think you and wonderful are two terms that never ever be used in the same century.

Taco John
02-26-2008, 09:06 PM
I think so. I mean just earlier someone mentioned that one of our candidates chairs a committee that hasn't even met since he began chairing it because he's been running for president since day 1 in the senate. That's pretty ridiculous. If you don't have any intention to make the office a priority then resign the office.


Let the people of his state decide if they want him out or not. I'd wager that they feel pretty well served by the attention that Obama brings their state, and are more than happy to keep him where he's at should he not get the presidential tap.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 09:13 PM
Let the people of his state decide if they want him out or not. I'd wager that they feel pretty well served by the attention that Obama brings their state, and are more than happy to keep him where he's at should he not get the presidential tap.

Lady, you have totally missed the point, but that seems to be you all over.

Either way the state gets attention. The question at hand is whether a candidate is committed to win the election or to just try to run and keep the ace in the hole.

Mr. Kotter
02-26-2008, 10:05 PM
Unless I've lost all I learned in Government classes the staff cannot vote on the bills being considered.

By running and not having the balls to resign your seat you are admitting that you are not really considering that you have a chance to win. I think that voters would see more sincerity in a candidate that gives up all to get elected.


Tom...you are, purely, and simply FOS on this. Seriously. I'm dead serious.

Sincerity? Surely you jest. If you wanna look, ONLY, at Bob Dole or John Kerry....fine, you may be right; okay? But if you wanna look at Obama....please, Tom....just S.T.F.U., alright?

:rolleyes:

Why would you insist on beating a dead horse....other than a GD stupid ass Denver Bronco, damn it? Why? Are you personally amused? WTF kind of crap is that?

:shake:

jAZ
02-26-2008, 10:11 PM
No, they shouldn't have to. Dole was done anyway, basically. McCain is the only Senator-Candidate in that position, Obama and Clinton would both continue on in office, likely for many many years if they were to lose.

alnorth
02-26-2008, 10:36 PM
No. I do not believe a candidate should be forced to resign for the same reason I am opposed to term limits (even if it would have meant Bill Clinton serving 16+ years).

The people should be permitted to vote for the most qualified person for the job. For anyone to say that the voters should not be allowed to vote for someone they want seems pretty arrogant to me. If they want to vote for the same guy 5 times in a row, so be it. Similarly, if the voters are fine with their guy running for president and keeping his job if he loses, so be it. Who are we to tell those voters that their man who they chose must quit? If they are as pissed off as you, then let them speak in the next election.

Taco John
02-27-2008, 01:22 AM
Lady, you have totally missed the point, but that seems to be you all over.

Either way the state gets attention. The question at hand is whether a candidate is committed to win the election or to just try to run and keep the ace in the hole.

You can insult people in this thread who disagree with your opinion all you want. It's not going to make your case any better.

DaneMcCloud
02-27-2008, 01:39 AM
I didn't insinuate that, I basically pointed out that nobody knows where he is coming from. In the same light you are an unknown quantity on this board. You could actually be OBL and nobody would know here.

Get a grip dude.

Different streams of thought are typical in different threads. I'm sure you didn't read every post in every thread you referred to to find out what direction from which the comments came.

Last time I checked, NewPhino wasn't Bin Laden.

Unless he underwent that top secret race changing surgery, converting him from Arab to White Arkansas school teacher (which in that case, makes him highly suspicious :spock:) I think we're safe.

If he HAS been changed (ala James Bond in "Die Another Day") we're ALL in trouble.

a1na2
02-27-2008, 04:44 AM
Tom...you are, purely, and simply FOS on this. Seriously. I'm dead serious.

Sincerity? Surely you jest. If you wanna look, ONLY, at Bob Dole or John Kerry....fine, you may be right; okay? But if you wanna look at Obama....please, Tom....just S.T.F.U., alright?

:rolleyes:

Why would you insist on beating a dead horse....other than a GD stupid ass Denver Bronco, damn it? Why? Are you personally amused? WTF kind of crap is that?

:shake:

Kotter, you have missed the point of the thread. It's my point that if a senator or congressman runs for president they should have the ethical pride in what their goal is to resign from their seat and be committed to running for the office of president.

If you looked at the first of this thread you will have seen that I commented on all three of the candidates running. I have not intentionally singled out Obama, but your best friend Taco has indicated that he is a great thing for Ohio because he is running for president. That has nothing to do with the ethical base of taking money to be a senator and missing MOST OF THE VOTES IN THE PAST YEAR.

SFTU? What kind of crap is that? Get real and stop attacking the messenger and start looking at the jist of the thread.

Amnorix
02-27-2008, 06:16 AM
No. And your praise of Dole is a bit hollow. I don't have any problems iwth him, and certainly have no issue with his retiring from the Senate to run, BUT:

1. he was 73 when he retired. Far older than Hillary/Obama, and older than McCain.

2. he was Majority Leader, and there's a real question of how effective he could be in THAT role while also running for President.

3. he almost HAD to do a "make or break" campaign. He'd been passed over several times before for the Rep. nomination, and he "deserved" to be its nominee, and he wanted it made clear that it was all or nothing for him. So it wasn't just some kind of display of largesse or something, but also a strategic/tactical decision.

Amnorix
02-27-2008, 06:19 AM
Oh, and let me add, hte ONLY people who have ANY right to complain about the candidates not withdrawing are the voters from the states that they represent. Invariably, they do NOT want the person to retire. I know that was true of Kerry when he ran last time around. Most in Massachusetts did not want him to quit to try to win the Presidency, ESPECIALLY with a freaking Republican as Governor.

Iowanian
02-27-2008, 06:36 AM
I think its the right thing to do.

If you're paid to do a job, and that job requires that you be at meetings and votes for the people you represent, and you're NOT because you're pursuing another personal ambition, its screwing your constituents because they're NOT being represented while you're campaigning in Idaho.

BucEyedPea
02-27-2008, 07:09 AM
Unfortunately that is exactly what you are electing them to do.
That's not what I meant. It's not unfortunate to me. It's fortunate.

I'm guessing that you will be happier with one of them in the whitehouse?
Not the current crop, no!

BucEyedPea
02-27-2008, 07:12 AM
I think so. I mean just earlier someone mentioned that one of our candidates chairs a committee that hasn't even met since he began chairing it because he's been running for president since day 1 in the senate. That's pretty ridiculous. If you don't have any intention to make the office a priority then resign the office.
Or he could just resign his chair in this committee.

bkkcoh
02-27-2008, 07:31 AM
I would think that if he was truly serious about running for president of the US, they should resign thier position in congress. That would give the appearance that they don't have something to fall back on and will go all out to get elected, because if they don't win the election. They won't have their position in congress to fall back on.

jAZ
02-27-2008, 07:32 AM
...and that job requires that you be at meetings and votes for the people you represent, and you're NOT because you're pursuing another personal ambition, its screwing your constituents because they're NOT being represented while you're campaigning in Idaho.
Per the post just above your's, that's not true in all cases. The requirements are set by the voters expectations.

BucEyedPea
02-27-2008, 07:35 AM
Last time I checked, NewPhino wasn't Bin Laden.

So he's a paesano now? NewPhino?:D

jettio
02-27-2008, 07:36 AM
When Bob Dole (the real one) ran for president he resigned his senate seat and devoted his time to the campaign. McCain, Clinton and Obama have all shirked their responsibility to the Americans they represent by not being present for business in the Senate.

IMO it would be an honorable thing to do to show your commitment to what you are aspiring to do.


If we are proposing new rules. I have a better one. Anybody that was stooopid enough to vote for B*sh ought to sit out the next couple of elections.

patteeu
02-27-2008, 01:48 PM
No.

I don't see it as a bad thing if a legislator gets too pre-occupied to think of new ways to tie us down with new legislation.

Logical
02-27-2008, 03:36 PM
No. And your praise of Dole is a bit hollow. I don't have any problems iwth him, and certainly have no issue with his retiring from the Senate to run, BUT:

1. he was 73 when he retired. Far older than Hillary/Obama, and older than McCain.

2. he was Majority Leader, and there's a real question of how effective he could be in THAT role while also running for President.

3. he almost HAD to do a "make or break" campaign. He'd been passed over several times before for the Rep. nomination, and he "deserved" to be its nominee, and he wanted it made clear that it was all or nothing for him. So it wasn't just some kind of display of largesse or something, but also a strategic/tactical decision.

Exactly, McCain retiring would be close to the same, but not quite.

a1na2
02-27-2008, 05:41 PM
If we are proposing new rules. I have a better one. Anybody that was stooopid enough to vote for B*sh ought to sit out the next couple of elections.

So I'm guessing you feel guilty and will not be voting in the next two elections.

That's probably a good thing.

jettio
02-28-2008, 08:36 AM
So I'm guessing you feel guilty and will not be voting in the next two elections.

That's probably a good thing.


That is not a very good guess.

Should an incumbent President campaign for re-election outside of Washington?

B*sh spend the entriety of 2004 running around the country lying about how Iraqis were being trained to stand up so that our troops could stand down.

Do you remember that laughable sh*t that B*sh and McCain were squawking in 2004 as Iraq got worse and worse?

We'll Stand Down after training the Iraqis to Stand Up.

B*sh obviously abdicated his Presidential responsibility to know what the f*ck was going on in his unnecessary war of choice.

Maybe your proposal ought to be modified to simply state that anyone that is doing a sh*tty job ought to resign his elected office whether running for President or not.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 09:36 AM
That is not a very good guess.

Should an incumbent President campaign for re-election outside of Washington?

B*sh spend the entriety of 2004 running around the country lying about how Iraqis were being trained to stand up so that our troops could stand down.

Do you remember that laughable sh*t that B*sh and McCain were squawking in 2004 as Iraq got worse and worse?

We'll Stand Down after training the Iraqis to Stand Up.

B*sh obviously abdicated his Presidential responsibility to know what the f*ck was going on in his unnecessary war of choice.

Maybe your proposal ought to be modified to simply state that anyone that is doing a sh*tty job ought to resign his elected office whether running for President or not.

It's apparent that you have missed most of the converstation as well as the fact that it was centered on senators and congressmen that are running for president, not the president running for re-election. Your comment about Bush lying is mostly a partisan comment as every politician wonders around the country telling the specific groups they are talking to what they feel they want to hear. It's all political BS.

Next time you jump into the middle of an argument try reading what has been written before you make comments that diminish your credibility.

Amnorix
02-28-2008, 10:17 AM
It's apparent that you have missed most of the converstation as well as the fact that it was centered on senators and congressmen that are running for president, not the president running for re-election.

Well, if the principle underlying your argument is that you can't be an effective Senator and run for Prez at the same time, and therefore should be morally obligated to resign, I'm not that argument doesn't apply about as well to a sitting President.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 10:36 AM
Well, if the principle underlying your argument is that you can't be an effective Senator and run for Prez at the same time, and therefore should be morally obligated to resign, I'm not that argument doesn't apply about as well to a sitting President.

I would point out that would not be practical. If you want to avoid the obvious problem every four years we could just make the Presidents term 6 years and limit it to one term in office.

jettio
02-28-2008, 11:14 AM
I would point out that would not be practical. If you want to avoid the obvious problem every four years we could just make the Presidents term 6 years and limit it to one term in office.

That is a better proposal that has been made by others. IIRC, Jimmy Carter has suggested the six-year single term.

I think you ought to try to sell that idea before the other, more dumbazz idea
about which you started the thread.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 11:52 AM
No.

Ignorance is bliss.