To those who are constantly bringing up Senate votes (for ANY candidate)

[FlyingSquirrel]

Do you realize how weak these arguments are?

The book "How to lie with statistics" should really have a sequel entitled, "How to lie about a candidate based on Senate votes". This is why so many governors become president as opposed to senators. Sad really, but there it is.

Senate votes are complicated. It's all about compromise, and if you can't compromise then you can't get your own agenda passed. A good senator will be forced to vote for something they don't completely believe in to avoid seeing something even worse get passed, or seeing the entire bill die when it contains some things which are important to them. A good senator will vote for one bill in exchange for someone else voting for a bill they have sponsored. It's how things work in the senate.

When there's something that contains, on balance, way too many things you can't support, then you vote against it. Many times you vote for something that you know will not pass; many other times you know it will pass regardless of your and others' objections, and you vote for it as political cover for possible attacks against you in an election - knowing that either way you vote, you'll be attacked, but you'll be less vulnerable if you voted FOR it than AGAINST. That's how it goes.

Finally, you can vote for something and then later realize you should not have. That's not "flip-flopping," that's being a rational adult willing to examine oneself and admit to mistakes and learn from them.

I would challenge those whose arguments against any candidate consist mainly of bringing up their Senate votes, to find better arguments.

[The Traveler]

1. That is a very valid point

My son (majoring in polysci at GSU) was lecturing me soundly on that subject just yesterday.

[zalinda]

2. And that's exactly why I discounted every

candidates votes, and started everyone with a clean slate. It was what was said on the campaign trail which led me to my choice.

But, certain individuals just can't help themselves and have to attack candidates according to how they voted. And we certainly can name all these individuals, as they spout the same crap thread after thread, and even starting them to get their jollies. But, the only thing they have accomplished, is a big turnoff for their candidate. There are now candidates that I can't bear watching or even listening to. I could have been convinced to switch candidates a month or so ago, but these people have made me stick to my candidate like glue. I don't want to be associated with such vitriol, as they put out.

zalinda

[Honeycombe8]

3. Not sure what you're talking about. Wanna given an example? Kerry lost in part...

because of his voting record. Regardless of the realities of Senate votes, the reality is that it makes for easy negative ads...the soundbites stating that so-and-so voted for or against something "three times!" The candidate can later explain the intricacies of why he voted the way he did, but few people will see that explanation, compared with those who see the negative ad.

This is why, I suppose, long-term senators rarely - rarely as in almost never - get elected President.

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. Very true.

But this time around all four candidates who stand the most chance of winning - Biden, Clinton, Edwards, & Obama - are senators, so there's no point discounting them based on that fact.

Specifically regarding your final comment: I have a feeling that it is why Edwards left the Senate after a single term. Some have claimed that he "knew he would not get re-elected" or some similar, um, stuff. ;-) I believe that he never intended to stay in the Senate longer than a single term because he has very strong presidential ambitions and knew that the longer he stayed there, the less chance he had of winning the presidency. Now some might say that should disqualify him because he's "too ambitious". I would say that the way you become president is by wanting the job. So you would have to disqualify everyone who is currently running for the same reason.

It would be nice if ambition did in fact disqualify you from the job. But we're living in the real world here.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. True, but it's also worth voting against something because you believe it is wrong

Just because you can't win a fight doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting.

[sampsonblk]

5. I agree with half of what you said

The Senate is very complicated. There are loads of procedural votes and sometimes a guy could appear to vote for something he's against, or vice versa.

But there are some votes which cannot be explained away by procedural details. You still have to stand for something. And if you don't, you should be punished.

Having said that, most of the political attacks based on senate votes are complete hogwash.

[FlyingSquirrel]

7. I agree with your post. n/t

[jillan]

8. Please feel free to look at Biden's voting record.

The good and the bad.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm


Biden has nothing to hide.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. I just did so...

and immediately saw MANY votes that could be misconstrued or blown out of proportion (by both Dems AND Repugs.) So it doesn't change my position on the weakness of the Senate vote argument, whether used against one candidate or used in favor of one's own.