Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

From the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday:

quote:

---

Why Kerry Should Resign
Yesterday the U.S. Senate considered a measure that would extend federal unemployment benefits for 13 weeks. Twelve Republicans joined 46 Democrats and independent Jim Jeffords in supporting it--but it failed on a 59-40 vote in favor. Sixty votes were required "to overcome objections that extending the benefits violated last year's budget agreement," as the Associated Press explains.

The one senator not voting: John Kerry, who was campaigning in Kentucky. Kerry apparently supported the measure; a spokesman tells the AP, "John Kerry has fought again and again to extend unemployment benefits for workers left behind in the Bush economy." But he couldn't be troubled to cast a vote on their behalf.

We understand that campaigning for president requires a lot of time and travel, and it would be unreasonable to expect Kerry to be in Washington for every Senate vote. But his frequent absences are depriving Massachusetts residents of full representation in Congress, and in this case having what Kerry himself would view as a deleterious effect on public policy.

There's an easy solution: Kerry should quit the Senate, as Bob Dole did in June 1996. This not only would allow the appointment of a full-time replacement but also would demonstrate Kerry's own confidence in his presidential campaign, possibly giving a boost to his party's morale.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

I couldn't get the AP story to link properly, but this is it:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...oyment_benefits

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

Well, Dole was also 73 (76?) and going to resign anyway (even if he lost, which he of course did). Kerry, it's reasonable to assume, will keep his Senate job if he fails in his White House bid.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

Though missing that vote was a pretty bone-headed thing to do. Republicans are already putting it in ads. Can't imagine what his campaign advisors were telling him to justify that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

Makes sense to me, although I can see the other side. Resigning sends a signal that he takes the campaign seriously and doesn't want to deprive his constituency of representation, but at the same time, staying in says that he is fullfilling his elected duty. Of course, the latter sentitment fails miserably if he doesn't actually fulfill that duty, as demonstrated in DMoon's first post.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Can Kerry run for President and the Senate at the same time then?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

Sure, but he doesn't need to run for the Senate, this isn't an election year for his seat (as Dmoon pointed out, Lieberman in 2000 was running for VP AND re-election to his Senate seat at the same time).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24755

Kerry is going to be a guest pundit on the TV news circuit in about 12 months.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

The other thing to consider on this, btw, is that, while Kerry played into their hands, this isn't quite the major make-or-break thing that the RNC and talking heads are making it out to be. Here are the Democratic talking points on that that I've been picking up, which I buy:

For one, the vote was just an amendment to a bill and even if Kerry had been there and the Republicans hadn't set up the vote for a 1 vote margin, the actual bill would not have become law.

Secondly, the Republicans are the ones that didn't want the extension, so I'm not sure how they're playing Kerry as the heel. Even if Kerry had shown up, the vote had been tied, remember who holds the tie-breaker.

Thirdly, this isn't a new tactic in politics. It's called playing hardball. A number of Republicans who would not have voted for extending the benefits otherwise specifically crossed over just to make this vote look bad for Kerry (check the votes, many who voted for the extension this time have made many statements saying they don't support it). If he had returned to Washington, they would have gone back to voting against it. They did the same thing to Gore in 2000 a few times.

Sounds to me just like chamber politics, upon closer inspection.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

The Rs that voted for extending benefits were:

Bond (MO)
Dole (NC)
DeWine (OH)
Murkowski (AK)
Smith (OR)
Talent (MO)
Voinovich (OH)

and

Snowe, Collins, McCain & Specter.

I can see the latter four voting this way on principle - the other 7 would never have voted to extend unemployment benefits. Ever.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

So you're saying they knew they could get it to 59 votes, just to make Kerry look bad.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

They knew it was going to lose one way or the other, so they tinkered with the voting to make it appear like it was all down to Kerry. The only way that could have backfired was if one of their own jumped ship at the last minute, which doesn't seem likely. It's a safe strategy, and not very hard to pull off. Kerry is going to have to miss votes to campaign; that's just the way it is. The Republicans are going to try to get as much capital out of that as possible.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

why wouldn't the dems have had someone jump ship then?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

Because it wouldn't have made any difference. The only way that would have helped is to have made the loss seem less close (essentially, handing themselves a bigger loss, while at the same time having to go through the same pain in the ass thing the DNC is doing, that being explaining to constituents why the vote turned out the way it did). And, probably because they couldn't be sure that the Repubs were going to do it until they did.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

Again, if this sounds like a conspiracy theory, the same thing was done to Gore in 2000. It's usually not a big deal, just a one day story, because the other side doesn't want to push it too hard due to the inherent risk of a backlash. I'm sure the Dems have done it to Republican candidates before too. Don't be surprised if you see more and more close votes with Republicans voting directly opposite their normal positions to bring it within a hair.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
Secondly, the Republicans are the ones that didn't want the extension, so I'm not sure how they're playing Kerry as the heel. Even if Kerry had shown up, the vote had been tied, remember who holds the tie-breaker.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

Sorry, you're right, 60 votes was required to pass, not tie. Too late at night to post.

I can't say for sure that it was either, but it's not a particular stretch, and it wouldn't be the first time it's been done. From the looks of it to me, I wouldn't be surprised.

In any case, as I said, I don't think it's a big deal either way.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged