Should you have to resign elected office when running for President?

[a1na2]

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]

No.

[a1na2]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

No, we could not even get the poor candidates we do now if that became law.

[a1na2]

Originally Posted by Ill-Logical

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

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]

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

[a1na2]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by a1na2

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]

Originally Posted by NewPhin

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]

Originally Posted by a1na2

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]

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]

Originally Posted by NewPhin

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]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

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.