Over the past 13 months, we have had several elected officials running for president. McCain, Paul, Clinton, Obama are the ones that are still in the race. I know that over the summer of 2007, many of these candidates spent much of their time in Iowa, and have covered the rest of the country since then, and not just on weekends and holidays.

Questions for debate:

1) Are these candidates able to conduct the business of the people (which is what the tax dollars they get paid is for) effectively while campaigning?

2) Is it appropriate for these candidates to be getting paid tax dollars to "interview" for a new job?

3) If it is appropriate, why? If not, why not?

4) Should there be new rules forbidding federal employees to campaign during "normal business hours" (meaning when they should be actually doing the job they are getting paid for)?

2) Is it appropriate for these candidates to be getting paid tax dollars to "interview" for a new job?

This question has come up before - long before existed. In 1960, Lyndon Johnson ran for both vice president and his Texas Senate seat. If we are going to ask this, don't we also have to ask about candidate absences while they are out campaigning to retain a job? In the private sector, would it be just as “bad” for a CEO of a large company to run while receiving money from shareholders? Do you include incumbent presidents running for reelection in this equation?

4) Should there be new rules forbidding federal employees to campaign during "normal business hours" (meaning when they should be actually doing the job they are getting paid for)?

I might favor a couple of rule changes.

First, might be an unpaid leave of absence - without loss of voting privileges - while candidates are out on the stump. I don't think this should apply while Congress is in recess.

Changing the rules would tend to favor candidates like Willard Mitt Romney, Michael Bloomberg and H. Ross Perot, who have enough money to finance their own campaigns. Rule changes would tend to make election to high office even more a rich person's game. While current practices may nauseate some people, I think the side effects of any medicine might outweigh any curative value.

Second, in a day when nearly everything else is done electronically, I see no reason a governor, senator or congressperson, running for office, couldn’t vote on key issues from a remote location.

I chose the wording "federal employees to campaign during "normal business hours"" to specifically include all federal workers. This is to include any person that gets paid with federal tax dollars to do their job.


When Congress is in recess is a perfect time to go campaigning, either for yourself or a colleague. While congress is in session is not the time to be running around the country trying to get a new job. I think that if these rules were in place, one would have to either find a way to campaign when Congress is out of session, or wait until his or her term was up. This would even the field to those that you listed. Romney waited until his term as Governor ended before his actual campaign, why not our federal officials?

As far as the electronically voting as an elected official goes, I would point you in the direction of our fellow debater Inventor. He seems to have a strong grasp and a great amount of education and factual information on the validity of electronic voting systems. According to him, this would not be a viable option. Too easily could the technology be rigged.

Aw, come off of it scubatim. If Bush can run the country remotely from AF-1 or the ranch in Crawford, then Senators Obaama, Clinton or McCain can cast a vote in the U. S. Senate from a remote location.

There is no parallel between this and millions of voters casting ballots in 50 separate states.

BTW: You did not counter my argument that laws or rules changing current campaigning would favor richer candidates nor did you address whether shareholders should pay for private CEO's to be out campaigning for office.

I think this is a case of elections and the democratic process not keeping up with the changing face of politics. There was a time many many years ago when you put your name on the ballot published a couple of pamphlets with your policies in them and left the rest to your supporters in that region. Nowadays the changes that have occured in the modern world (air travel, the expanding population that can actually vote etc) you need to be able to go out to the different states put in appearances kissing babies in order to actually simply because when the modern democratic process was formed the ability to travel the vast distances to go around to the different states didnt exist.

Also changes in the political scene and the media circus that surrounds elections (in this instance presidential) also means you need to start campaigning much earlier and much more vigourously just to get your name out there.

Even on the more local level for senators and congressman (or is it congressperson now to be PC - if so I apologise for not using the correct term) or mayor for example you need to follow the old saying of early bird catches the worm with respect to the media. There is also the question of when do you propose candidates campaign for election? What do you propose to replace the current system with.

I think campaigning while still on the job is a common problem for all democracies. How do you contact your local political representative with your concerns or help rectifying a problem when they are on the otherside of the country "interviewing for another job as you put it" even if they do get back you their mind is going to be on other things. But until you can find a system to replace it with there isnt much you can do about it.

So you are saying that voting from a remote location is not susceptible to fraudulent activity? We are talking about more than just voting. Congressional members belong to committees, have a responsibility to their constituents, among other duties. The President can run things from Air Force One. The plane was built specifically to enable him to do so. Besides, he doesn't vote for issues or sit on any committees. So, I think a Congressman should be in Washington while congress is in session. The President can be pretty much anywhere and still have the ability to do his job.


Really? There is no parallel between electronic voting by the general public and our elected officials? There is no possibility of someone hacking into the system and forging a vote? There is no possibility for a programmer to pass bills that aren't actually passed by Congress with some sort of script that moves votes? Where is Inventor when you need him?


You didn't answer all of the questions. What makes you think that I have to counter all of your points?

How does making elected officials do their jobs instead of campaigning on the taxpayers dime give the likes of Romney and Bloomberg an advantage? How does allowing federal employees to campaign when they should be working even things out? How am I supposed to counter your points if I don't see how they make any sense?

As far as the private sector goes, that isn't up to the general public. That is why it is called the private sector. I am not concerned with what GE or Citi does with the people that work for them that want to run for office. They aren't paid by tax dollars. So, your point "nor did you address whether shareholders should pay for private CEO's to be out campaigning for office" is irrelevant. The questions for debate dealt specifically with tax dollars that are paying people to run for office.

I will post them again for you if you had forgotten:
Questions for debate:

1) Are these candidates able to conduct the business of the people (which is what the tax dollars they get paid is for) effectively while campaigning?

2) Is it appropriate for these candidates to be getting paid tax dollars to "interview" for a new job?

3) If it is appropriate, why? If not, why not?

4) Should there be new rules forbidding federal employees to campaign during "normal business hours" (meaning when they should be actually doing the job they are getting paid for)?

Nope, after reading through those questions again, nothing about the private sector is questioned at all.



I am not proposing we replace any democratic system with anything else. I am simply pointing out that Senators are missing votes just so they can campaign. What else are they missing? Are they no longer on the committees that they were appointed to? Are they receiving all of the information that is dispersed daily that informs them about the various bills in Congress? Are they participating in the party caucuses? Are they leaving all of their constituent work up to aides? Are they actually doing their jobs while getting paid? Should we, as the employers of these people, set new rules requiring them to go to work when they are expected to? To me this is a no-brainer. If I pay someone to do something, then they should be doing it, not looking for another job while I am paying them. These representatives and senators have a responsibility that they swore to fulfill. Why is it OK for them to not fulfill their responsibility just because they want a different job?

1.) There is a general rule of thumb on Capitol Hill: The aides do all the hard stuff. I've only known of a handful of politicians who honestly put in more than four hours of work a day. The aides and workers put in a lot of the hard work associated with the job Congresspeople are sworn in for.

2/3.) They haven't left their old one? So naturally we're honor-bound to provide payment unless they choose to defer it for their service.

4.) I wouldn't be in favor of applying these rules to career politicians, simply because it limits their mobility. I would rather hear too much rather than too little about a candidate. Their aides and aforementioned workers, perhaps; but only if they work in a federal agency to begin with.

This may be true, but doesn't the actual Congressman have to do the voting? Doesn't the actual Congressman have to go to the committee meetings? Isn't it the actual Congressman that has to give the speeches and conduct the debates on the floor? I know that many of the emails you get from your Congressman's office are actually written by aides, but the actual floor work and committee work has to be done by the Congressmen.


Don't get me started on career politicians! Besides that point, if one of us wanted to run for any office, would our current employers let us just go do campaign work during business hours and still pay us? I would venture a guess that you would not be allowed to do so. You might be able to take a leave of absence if you have a very supportive and understanding boss, or more than likely have to resign your position, but I highly doubt very many employers would allow you to campaign while on the the clock. I think current Congressmen should have to make a decision of either serving out their term and then run, resigning their seat, or campaign during breaks. Lord knows they take enough time off from Washington work! There is a lot of things that can get done for a campaign from Washington in the off hours. They can't do the hand shaking and baby kissing, but they can get political ads run.

scubatim



I don't think there's an expressed rule that voting must take place on the floor of the Senate or House. I'm sure a proxy vote system exists for those politicians who cannot be there.

There are how many other Senators or Representatives in the Congress who share the ideals of those running for president? I don't think it prudent for Senator A to be there when Senator Q helped influence A's position on the matter in the first place.




Actually, my current employer expects us to become politicians. But I see your point.

The fact of the matter is, they're not really ignoring their duties if they're out there campaigning for another capacity to serve in. I view what politicians do on the campaign trail ten times as hard as what they accomplish in their respective office. Without the campaign process, I daresay most people wouldn't know who these people are.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you here. Can you explain?


In this situation, running for President of the United States, they are ignoring their duties as Congressmen. No where have I ever heard in the description of a senator or representative's job that they must campaign for President of the United States. That is not one of their responsibilities. Their job is to legislate, not run for another office. They are more than welcome to campaign in order to educate the voter, but not on company time or on my dime. Either resign or wait until your term is up if you want to run for President of the United States.

ScubaTim, what are the normal business hours of the President of the United States?? When is he not required to do his job??

What does this question have to do with Congressmen leaving Washington while Congress is in session, still recieving their tax dollare pay, and not participaing in the legislative activities in order to run for another political office?

Sure thing.

Senators and Representatives running for higher office don't exactly come a dime a dozen, but unless two Senators from the same state are running for President, it is perfectly reasonable to assume the people's interests are being looked after. In the same vein, just because one Representative is not there to cast a vote, it does not mean that the world will crumble. My Representative John Mica is one of the very few in the House who has not missed a single floor vote, but that is because he's dedicated. Other Congresspeople miss several votes in a row and some don't attend hearings/briefings at all [i.e., John Kerry].

And on the matter of floor debates, which is what I had hoped to illustrate with my carefully thought out alphabet system: Say Senator Robert Byrd is there and shares his opinion with Senator Barack Obama. Does the Senate really need to hear from both Byrd and Obama if they're going to say the same thing on the same issue?

Next, I have to agree with you. But people rarely seek new employment without job security.

On the floor debate issue, I can see your point. I do find it a little funny how you happend to choose Byrd and Obama as your examples.

As far as Congressmen already missing votes and meetings, I don't think that justifies anything. Having them run around the country campaigning only builds on that problem. I think the fact that we have multiple elected officials doens't necessarily mean the people's issues are being addressed. People put these officials in office. When they are running around the country and not in Washington, they aren't representing the people that put them there.

I do what I can.

I would love to see these lawmaking bodies force its members into bondage-like chairs and desks that keep them tethered for the duration of their term to ensure productivity, but alas, things can't always be perfect. The fact of the matter is that the electorate expects a show. It's not worth a candidate to run and then not actively campaign. It's become socially acceptable for candidates to take time off to seek higher office.

And once in higher office, one can spend forty weeks a year in Crawford riding around in a pick-up truck and running an inner-monologue where every fourth word is "Iraq" or "terrorist."

Nothing at all Scubatim. But correct me if I am wrong you did not limit your debate questions to just congressmen did you?? So please answer, no need to dodge.

What are the normal business hours of the President of the United States?? When is he not required to do his job?

Actually question #4:
4) Should there be new rules forbidding federal employees to campaign during "normal business hours" (meaning when they should be actually doing the job they are getting paid for)?
So no, I did not limit the questions to congressmen. This question covers all federal employees.

But I will entertain you, I am curious what twists you have in mind here. The President is the President 24/7. He is required to do his job at all times, unless of course he is undergoing a medical procedure that requires him to be under an anesthetic among I am sure other times. If you are trying to point out that the President campaigns while on duty for a second term, I agree. One can make an argument that the President can function pretty much anywhere, but I still think restricting a president from spending valuable tax time on campaigning would not be out of the question. You would be right. However, even though the President has to be president 24/7, he is allowed "time off". Even during this "time off", he still works, even if it is from the Crawford Ranch. If I misread your intent, I am interested.

Scubatim and Droop:

That point will become moot if McCain wins the Presidency.

He was the most absent senator, unless you count the Democrat guy who had a brain hemorrhage.

But McCain didn't show up to vote when he WASN'T campaigning either. You guys are debating the point of a No-Show vote from a Senator as if people care.

Nobody here really held McCain accountable, so since he was a do-nothing anyway, Arizona didn't really lose any representation when he campaigned for President.

I guess my point is that you'd be less effective campaigning as a Senator if you were effective in the first place.

Just my two cents.

Just another example why we need more accountability in Washington.

Ah, we have a statement of fairness from scubatim.

Let’s look at the 2004 election. Bush had AF-1 to flit around the country campaigning at will. At times he was out delivering goodies, sort of like Santa Claus to his “little” brother’s state of Florida after all the hurricanes. It was almost like a sleigh full of toys and St. Bush, too. It didn’t seem to hurt the incumbent’s vote totals there at all.

So – as you are so fond of saying – should we further handicap the challenger, in this case Senator John Kerry, by hog tying him in Washington.

The people of this country have as much right to see the challengers as we do the incumbent occupant of the oval office.

If you can ditch your righteous indignation long enough, scubatim, make a case for the fairness of such a situation.

You are correct, that is my intent. Nothing more to really debate. Presidients can't campaign for re election and Senators can't run for President. Can't say i agree, but if you are being fair... I can't say you aren't being fair no can I??

I would say that I would rather the President spend the time campaigning that they spend 'vacationing', but given the fact that it is only a 4 year gig, do they really need that much time off?


What in the hell are you talking about?

BoF, I think you're referencing hog-tying Mr. Kerry in reference to my post, not scubatim's.

And actually, I can't recall my local news ever covering a visit from St. Bush. Our governor at the time was the most popular Florida has ever had, and he can hardly be likened with his brother's charms or intelligence.

In any event, I think it is important to remember that almost all of the work we elect politicians for isn't physically accomplished by said politician.

I think I was plain enough. I know it's a painful process, but you might have to exercise a little more gray matter to figure it out.


My post was aimed at scubatim, but I did try to second what you said below using different wording.


You seem to get it. Unfortunately, subatim doesn’t.


Here’s a GOP page link touting St. Bush’s trip to Florida in September, 2004 with a bag of goodies in his Santa pack. Ah, two billion dollars for the incumbent to give away. I would call that a big advantage for the incumbent president's reelection campaign and it would get bigger if we implemented subatim’s “gripe of the week” and made the challenger pull detention in the senate chamber during much of the campaign.


http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14280

.

See, I didn't hear about that. Apparently North Florida doesn't care what goes on in Cuba... er, South Florida.

In any event, that raises the dynamic where the risk is even greater: Bush was away from the White House [or Crawford] on this trip during campaign season fluffing his own image. By some logic presented in this debate, he should be locked forever in the Oval Office. Campaigns have a specific purpose, and clipping the wings of politicians creates apathy.

I love it, BoF, you even drag me into your responses to other people! What is your obsession with me? Are you wanting me to come back with some angry response? Besides, I have already said that the President should not be campaigning on the company dime. So, with that said, your point is pointless.

I think that would be because your points are relevant to the discussion and that BoF certainly doesn't have an obsession.

Well it's important to remember that before becoming the President, s/he was also putting in taxes and contributing to the paycheck and thereby having some measure of vested interest in the campaign.

Is it my "obsession" or your paranoia accompanied by delusions of grandeur? I don’t want to look them up, but numerous times you have complained about people “picking on you.” Get use to it. This is a debate board. That’s what we do. Nobody singles you out as you seem to think. You are turning things that are impersonal to personal.

Now back to the thread under debate.

I will ask for a reference to your claim. Numerous, huh? Yeah, you are right.

To clarify, Scubatim are you saying you are against the President campaigning for his own reelection??

Here's one reference to what I was talking about.


I could find others, but I'm not inclined research and write your biography. You are doing a fine job writing your own autiobiography with each and every post. As the late comedian Justin Wilson would say, "continue yourself."

Now, hopefully, back to the debate.

With all of the time off that the president takes (admittedly this president especially), some of that could be used to campaign. Taking however many weeks off the President does for vacation, then leaving Washington for another endless number of weeks to campaign is a little excessive, even if the President can do most functions from a remote location. The President of the United States is largely a symbolic role, and the symbol should be in the Oval Office, or doing diplomatic work. Instead of taking weeks of vacation at a time, save that for a campaign. Though there is always work for the President to do, I would venture a guess that while Congress is off doing 'constituent work' in their homes states, the President's schedule would open up a little, but that is just a guess. I don't know exactly what the President does on a daily basis, but one would think that while the rest of Washington clears out, he would have some free time. If he wants to run for a second term, campaign at that time and not vacationing the 250 days Bush apparently took in 2003. So to answer your question, yes I think the President should be able to campaign to be re-elected, but something has to give. Taking 35 weeks off for vacation, then who knows how many to campaign, pretty much leaves about 16 hours in the White House doing his job. (that might be a slight exaggeration)

I think this is a good point on both sides.

At first I think... it's silly that a public official is spending time on the road and not doing his/her job. Then I think, how would anyone ever get re-elected?

I personally believe that the campaign cycle should be part of their every day job, but wrapped more in getting public opinion, going to see people in the states (or in their congressional district) and across the globe, etc.

THEN- I think there should be a true "fair time" rule with a more structured policy for who is where when, etc.

It's hard. I feel like they should have a chance to get re-elected, but they also should be doing their job. There has to be a way to make it work (at least in part) for both. Right now I don't believe that to be a part of the process.

It is tough. One point of view is the purpose of an elected position. Is it intended to be a career? Are politics really a career, or is it a service to the community that the post represents? Do we set standards that require more accountability to our elected officials making sure they are in Washington when they need to be, or do we set up certain times allowing them to campaign for re-election or for a different post? Do we just let things go as is and have no accountability for missing votes?

I think working in politics representing the people is a service, not a career. Which is one reason I am an advocate for term limits for all elected officials. Since it is a service, turning a blind eye to those that spend the greater amount of what will be nearly two years campaigning instead of serving their term I think is irresponsible.

Those who cannot act turn to politics to create a name for themselves. For what is politics but stage management that is sometimes unscripted?

Sure, it's a service... Ideally. Ambition makes one behave differently and I'm all for the blood feuds. It's like wrestling without the spandex and using words instead of chairs or fists. I'm a huge fan of watching politicians spar and it's more fun when they're established figures because they have more years of promises to remember and numerous more skeletons to dig up. Term limits would ruin a source of great joy in my life.

The campaign process for reelection is an expected function in the career of a politician. Running an active [and clean, but who cares anymore?] and vibrant campaign will change the peoples' perception of an official and can make or break the deal moreso than their entire preceding time in office.

Debates now have a certain wow factor that reminds me of American Idol. It no longer is about substance or service, it is about getting applause and wowing the judges, if you will. Our election process has become a multi-million (will it reach a billion this year?) stage show, no longer about what or who is best for the job, but who has the best TV presence, or can drum up the most YouTube videos or hits on MySpace. I am excited that more people are getting involved through technology, however I have yet to see much substance, it is mostly fan fare. I know what I would like to see is only found in a dream world, but you have to start somewhere. I only see our election process getting worse. Will people start running for the next presidential election in 2010? Will we have presidents elected on principal and not who rubs elbows with the best celebrities? I am skeptical.

Well, by iLogic, would you support candidates making their bids for the presidency so early if they did it from a computer rather than the campaign trail? MySpace, Facebook and the other sites have become rather politically active this election season, so would it be such a bad thing for people who share your opinion if a candidate stuck more to their guns virtually than making speeches and dining with the commonfolk?

It isn't the process that I find to be insulting. It is the fact that campaigns have become reality TV shows, that last forever. I am happy that candidates are using the internet to reach out to more people. Use all the resources available. If you watch the debates or the news channels when the polls close and the numbers start rolling in, all of the sets and fanfare is getting too much for me. There is nothing to do about it, I am just expressing my disgust for how our campaign process has turned into a three-ring circus, in my opinion.

I happen to find CNN's Election Center both classy and dignified. I can't wait for the dancing chorus girls.

In any event, I don't mind the fanfare. Teddy Roosevelt was a master and really brought about the political fanfare. I think it's important to getting out there and just making yourself heard. Who are you going to listen to? You're by-the-book chemistry teacher, or your crazy art teacher? Most of the times the crazy wins.

And I think that is what I fear: "the crazy wins."

This came from Fox News so, it has to be fair and balanced


Apparently John McCain’s campaign has decided to use sitting president George W. Bush in the campaign. It seems he will be used in safe Republican havens like Texas (according to MSMBC) and more importantly to raise money - see link.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/18/...es-john-mccain/

Bush gallivants around in AF-1, campaigning for what he hopes is his Republican successor. Let’s open Pandora’s Box a little wider. If it’s wrong for current candidates to campaign on their own behalf, is paying Bush to do so for someone else wrong?

What Pandora's box do you honestly think you are opening? Of course it is. When he actually does it, we will see to what extent. You think by making crass remarks about Fox News and bringing a Republican out, you are going to get someone to blindly stand up for them, and you are wrong. Why not try to debate with something other than partisan attacks?

What about my FNC remark was crass? Does it matter to what "extent" Bush campaigns, does fundraisers or is it that he does it period?

Traditionally, sitting presidents fundraise for the candidate from their own party as well as many other candidates at different levels of government. This doesn't make it ok at all. I don't think for a minute that it will change at all, but it is my opinion that what our current list of candidates is doing by spending all of their time out of Washington is a waste of tax dollars.

Does that mean you are applying the same standard to the current candidates and the sitting president?

Let's take a quick look at my posts.



What is confusing about either of these statements?

This statement might leave a small loophole.



I just wanted to be sure you condemned all campaigning by Bush as inapproporiate.

Would you be just as curious if a democrat was in office, or is everything partisan to you?

If you will read back over the thread, scubatim you will find that I was not one of those people criticizing Clinton, Obama or McCain for campaigning. I favored letting the voter get a feel for them. Nor have I said that it was wrong for Bush to campaign for reelection, but I did