The idea for this debate came out of this thread regarding the recent vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. The vote to continue debating the amendment failed by 50 nea votes to 48 yea votes. However, Kerry and Edwards were not present to go on record with how they felt about the issue. (voting records here).

A few days before the word on the street was that the GOP supporters of the amendment were far short of the necessary votes and risked being completely embarrassed by it. It was pretty clear to everyone that this amendment didn't stand a chance of getting anywhere.


We also know that the Bush/Cheny team are strong supporters of the amendment and if they had their druthers, the entire election would be decided on the merits of homosexual marriage alone.

So that brings us back to Kerry and Edwards missing the vote. A few people have taken issue to this apparent cop out. Kerry and Edwards were actually out campaigning on the day of the vote, but their motives for missing the vote have been questioned.

I'll post my responses to this after a few people have posted, but I want to make it clear up front my position on the overall issue. I am very against this amendment and very much for homosexual marriage being legalized.

Questions for debate:
1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

Yes it is, they are Senators and this is part of their job.

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

That they didn't want to take a firm position on the issue. Too afraid to scare off the christian voters that might want to vote against Bush.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

Sometimes, yes, but not to the levels we see today. As soon as the president is sworn in, he almost immediately is campaigning for re-election. We do need some guidelines for campaigning. The president of the USA is supposed to be president, and the Senators are supposed to be Senators. They should not be allowed to just take off as much time they see fit to campaign. If the Senators should run, they should quit their job, or take a leave of absence (no pay), the president should be limited to a set number of days to campaign, again no pay.

From every news story on the subject:



Seems clear what their position is. No to the amendment, no to gay marriage.

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

Nope. Would change the margin of loss from 48-50 to 48-52 and the sponsors STILL needed to get to 60-40 to just clear that first hurdle. Six Republicans didn't follow the party line: Campbell (CO), Chafee (RI), Collins (ME), McCain (AZ), Snowe (ME), and Sununu (NH). Send them all Xmas cards!

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

Something nefarious, I'm sure. Perhaps they were looking for Vince Foster's killers. No, wait! Maybe they were trying to find a good intern!

Seriously: their motive -- in their minds -- is to use their time wisely to change the course of this country. Seems a bit more important than casting a vote that turned out not to mean anything.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

Ok, this one is a bit tougher. I think that Kerry and Bush (and Edwards and Cheney) all have important jobs right now. Sometimes they'll miss their kids' soccer practices for this job (ok, that was hyperbole, but you get the point), because their job is important.

Kerry's and Edward's job right now -- as well as Bush's -- is to earn your vote so that they can change -- or continue -- the direction for this country. I can't think of any action that's more important to the future of this nation. Certainly not a vote that had no real meaning, considering the resolution was dead before it even arrived on the floor and everyone knew it.

1. I think it is. Even if they've casually stated their opinions on gay marriage, voting for or against this amendment would make them responsible for the consequences of it passing or not passing. The fact that they're not willing to take that responsibility should worry votors.

2. Kerry and Edwards didn't want to have to answer to people who would disagree with their votes. Have you noticed all the backlash Kerry has gotten for his vote on giving Bush the power to go to Iraq? It sounds to me like Kerry and Edwards were both avoiding having to explain themselves to more conservative votors.

3. I believe there's lee-way for having to miss some of their less important duties for campaigning-- I mean, they're running for president; that should be a given. I do though expect both candidates to show up for duties only they can complete that have a great effect on American's lives.

Questions for debate:
1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

In a way I am disappointed because they both said last week that they would be there for the vote. But in another way as has been stated the vote was not even close so their votes did not really matter except to show them on the record which they have already stated on the record in many different forms already where they stood. So all in all it really did not make a difference to me that they were not there for the vote.

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

I don't see there being any motives as being sinister for missing the vote, just that they could be more productive on the campaign trail then voting for something that did not depend on their votes.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

Like Amf said this one is a little harder, over the last year their were some votes that I wished that Kerry would have been in the Senate for, but then I also see it as more of playing politics like the unemployment extension was one away from passing but the Republicans said since Kerry was not there it did not pass. But I see it more of if he was there it still would not have made a difference cause they would just lower the vote again to not pass it.

Now if Kerry and Edwards were there they would only be restating their views that they have been saying, but then the Republicans would have used the vote against them either way. So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?
Is it a big deal? No. It does, however, demonstrate where their priorities lie.

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?
Gutlessness. They were unwilling to take a stand against prejudice for fear that it could be used against them.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?
For current office holders, campaigning should be done on their own time. We pay them to represent us, not to campaign for further office.

For myself, while I can guarantee that my vote will not go to Bush it must be said that I will remember that Kerry and Edwards didn't vote for me when the time comes to cast my vote.

Ok, so my answers to these questions.

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

No, it is not a big deal in my opinion. It was a pretty much universal fact that the measure was not going to pass and therefore their votes weren't really necessary. I believe that if their votes were important they would have been there.

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

At the core, their motive was purely political and I'll have to say I agree with their position here. The GOP would love nothing more than to make this issue the corner stone issue of the election this year. Forget Iraq, forget Terrorism, forget domestic priorities, forget Jobs -- we want to make this about Gay Marriage. Nice try guys, but Kerry and Edwards didn't bite.

If Kerry and Edwards had gone on record as going against the measure, there is no doubt in my mind that the next few weeks would be filled with ads sponsored by the Bush-Cheny campaign saying that Kerry and Edwards were trying to "erode family values" and other such garbage messages.

I'm sure staying out of the vote will have some consequences too (really no matter how they voted, the GOP will make a big deal out of it), but it won't be near as severe as if they had voted against it.

I support the cause just as much or more than most, but we all have to take a step back and look at reality. Their vote was not crucial today and voting against the amendment would have had very negative political consequences because the GOP could have made it a major campaign issue at that point.

This thing won't be settled in Congress, it is going to get settled in the Supreme Court and everyone just needs to keep fighting the war until the case finally gets heard. We can't expend all of our energy up front, it'll be a long fight.

Anyway, that is my two cents on the subject.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?
I would say that yes it is, as long as it does not become excessive or interfere with "important" aspects of their job. I suppose "important" is somewhat subjective, but at least in election year their job in part is to get re-elected. You simply can't do that without devoting a significant portion of your attention to that effort.

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

Not as big a deal as it's been made out to be. Look, if Senator Kerry's position on this amendment was some big secret, I can see that there would be a problem. However, he's said numerous times that we don't need a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In a vote that wasn't even close, and with his opinion on the issue out in the open, what's the big deal?



Standing Up with Pride



Statement from Mary Beth Cahill on Gay Marriage Amendment

This is likewise the belief of John Edwards. I think they both realized (and it was very apparent) that this bill was going to fail miserably; why should they waste campaign time to go back to Washington to vote on something that neither of their votes would make a tremendous amount of difference to?




Voting is essentially taking a position on an issue, is it not? Then Senator Kerry and Edwards have already publicly stated their opposition to this amendment and their belief in equal rights for LGBTers! They've mentioned their positions in speeches, and their views can easily be found on their campaign website. If they were so terrified of taking a stance on this issue, why did they say these things?

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

I believe that their motives were to use their time in a more productive way that to fly back to Washington to cast a vote on something that didn't need either of their votes.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

For the senators, I think they can afford to miss a vote here or there if the measure is in no danger of passing or failing without their votes, and if they have made their stance on the particular issue public. I think that Dubya can afford to campaign if he isn't missing anything major as well. This doesn't, however, give them the latitude to miss exorbitant amounts of work.

Questions for debate:
1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

In an age where people telecommute to work on a regular basis, I'm certain that they had a much stronger feel than I do, for whether or not they needed to be in Washington for this vote. This was not an amendment that they had proposed. This was not an amendment that the Democrats are pushing, or seeing a major need for. Gay marriage is a phenomenon that has really only erupted in the past few months, on George W. Bush's watch, as it were. Perhaps as President, he could have walked the halls of the Senate, and impressed the recalcitrant Republican Senators on just how important this issue was for the nation's security. Instead, the President has been riding around in a Canadian manufactured campaign bus, snubbing the NAACP's invitation to speak, while trying to garner votes in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

When I am given a choice of 1 incumbent candidate running for a single seat on the school board, and nothing else on the ballot, my failure to vote leaves open the possibility that someone could stage a successful write-in campaign. Realistically though, on such election days, I have gone to work without stopping to vote first. Was I derelict in my duty as a citizen? I saw supporting a family as my first responsibility .

This was a Senate Vote where the Republicans needed a minimum number of votes to pass this amendment, not a vote where the Democrats needed a minimum number of votes to defeat the amendment. If it was clear that this was the main business of the day, and that the outcome was already clear; what value was there in having them commute to Washington to cast their nay votes. If anything, their presence on the Senate floor might have solidified the Republican voting bloc, and led to a different outcome.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

If Kerry and Edwards fail to win this election, this might be an issue for their constituents when they run for re-election to the Senate. As a voter on a national level, this is a non-issue. Politicians have been campaigning for as long as I can remember, and I am certain, long before I was born. They are elected to represent us, and not hired to work on an hourly or daily wage.

President Bush, it has been reported, has taken more vacation time from his job as President, than any President in our history. Neither the President nor the Vice President have seen fit to resign their positions in order to campaign for re-election, nor would anyone expect them to. They have maintained a busy schedule both raising funds and campaigning for re-election.

As a voter looking at who I want to be President, I want to hear as much from the candidates as possible. At the moment, the job of Bush, Kerry, Edwards, and Chaney is to explain to the American voters where they want to lead the country, and how they intend to do that. We really do not have a history of voting unemployed, homeless people off the street and into The White House.

We want a President who is capable of scheduling his time effectively, and making decisions as to what is the most important task at hand. Our acting President has taken us to war on several fronts, yet he somehow wants us to feel that the Gay Marriage issue is of more importance than capturing Osama Bin Laden. Until I am shown otherwise; I believe that applying the military policy of "Don't Ask. Don't Tell." at the County Clerks office will prove no threat to my marriage, or anyone else's marriage. I am certain that if Senators Kerry and Edwards felt there was an issue on the floor of the Senate that required their influence, and their votes in order for the issue to go their way, that they would be there. This apparently was not one of those issues. They very likely have competent staff capable of handling the day to day problems, correspondence, and issues of their constituents.

As a kid, I kept a hand written note signed "Ike" for a month, until I was certain he had followed through... I remember fondly the days when getting a message to my Congressman meant going to the Farmer's Market on Saturday morning and talking to him.

It's 3:00 AM, and I can drop my Senators an e-mail at no cost. It's the 21st century. I don't know if they will ever see that message, but I know the staff will let them know the percentages on a given issue. I have logged on to America's Debate from friend's houses, from the library, and I recommended it to someone at church 7 or 8 hours ago. A United States President is still a President in England, Egypt, or Crawford, Texas. A United States Senator can still be doing his job on a junket to Africa, or a campaign stop in California.

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

Realistically I don't think it is. However as has been said before, as a senator he is paid to be there for these votes. Every vote a senator misses on the campiagn trail should require a days worth of pay cut from his salary. I may support Kerry against Bush, but that doesn't mean I have to like him, or his ever fattening wallet.

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

Motive= Campaign ...simple enough

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

It always counts, irregardless of circumstance, but they are of course going to miss out sometimes due to campaigning. I think they should be mandated to be there the majority of the time.

This is a non-issue. The vote that was missed was to close debate, not a specific vote on the amendment. They knew the vote would fail and thus chose not to attend. As I posted on another thread, Edwards made his position on Same-sex marriage clear. I don't agree with it but I don't have to agree 100% with whomever I vote for office.

I love how the major agenda items for the congress in the coming months are over gay marriage and flag burning (both proposed amendments). Our tax dollars at work *sigh*

Doc

They had to miss the vote, if they wanted to avoid Republican's lies in Bush Ads. We all know how the Republicans in charge of the Bush campaign love to do this. Just as an example there is a new Bush ad where he talks about Kerry's voting record, actually Kerry's lack of voting. At any rate they bring up the Laci Peterson vote and characterized it as"Yet somehow Kerry found the time to vote against the Laci Peterson Bill, which protects pregnant women" Sure that's what that act did... I thought it was about giving the fetus right's. If Kerry would vote in the Marriage Act he would vote not to have an amendment. There would be an ad a week later saying... "Kerry voted to legalize gay-marriage."

Questions for debate:
1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

No. This vote was not the Senate vote on whether or not to amend the U.S. Constitution. It was a procedural vote to close debate on the FMA and move it on to a real Senate vote.

"Republican leaders decided to move to a second version of the measure, stripped of language that troubled some GOP moderates. But Democrats refused to go along. That means supporters of the amendment will need to get 60 votes in a procedural vote Wednesday to cut off debate and move to a vote on the amendment itself -- a hurdle they are unlikely to overcome with most Democrats and some moderate Republicans opposed." ----- CNN.com, July 14th, 2004 (emphasis added)

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

They expressed their motives. This was NOT the vote on the FMA. It was the vote to close debate on the FMA.

"Kerry, who was in Boston, issued a statement saying the Senate floor "should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes. Edwards, at a campaign rally in Iowa, said "the president and the vice president tried to use our Constitution and the amendment of that Constitution as a political tool, and the United States Senate, they said, 'No. We will not accept it.'" --- CNN.com, July 15th, 2004

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

No. Kerry should have been there for the vote. Edwards too. I think they were derelict in their duties as U.S. Senators. That said, Bush has a major head start on campaigning--four years, to say the least. Perhaps I shall cut Kerry and Edwards some slack. Like droop224 said, had Kerry and Edwards voted, the Bush campaign would have instantly smeared the airwaves with ads criticizing them for voting against the amendment (which, in fact, would have been misleading and, if I may say, dishonest).

(edited to adjust layout)

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

Nope. This was George W. Bush's dog & pony show; the onus was on his supporters to be present and make the vote. Clearly the majority of the Senate does not share his concerns regarding the proposed amendment.

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

My best guess is that they want to be elected President and Vice President, respectively, which means they have to campaign hard to unseat the incumbents.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

Whether it is okay or not, both candidates evidently feel they need to be non-participants in some of these battles in order to win the war, i.e., the Presidency.

Yes, the neglect can hurt the country when a Senator isn't present to vote on a bill, or when a President preempts some of his duties in order to campaign. Missed opportunities campaigning might mean a loss in November, though, and neither wants to risk that.

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

This was a vote as to whether or not to end the debate over the amendment, not a vote on whether the amendment should pass. If they missed that vote, then there might be a problem, but this was just a vote about whether or not to keep arguing about it. So, not a big deal.

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

I don't believe they had alterior motves for missing the vote. Beyond, that there are many reasons why they might've.

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

Obviously, I would prefer they did their current jobs in addition to campaigning, but I do see that this can be an unrealistic expectation at times. I do feel they need to be there when it counts.

First off, Hello I am new to the boards but excited to be here. I have been looking for some place to be able to post and discuss politics for sometime.

This is a lose-lose situation for Kerry-Edwards and I am glad they devoted their time to their campaign. Had they voted, the Republicans would have said they don't represent American values and look they support gay marriage, which we know is inaccurate. We also know that since neither showed up, Bush is now going to say, they wouldn't take a stand on it when everyone knows they stand on the issue.

1. Is it a big deal that Kerry and Edwards missed this vote, knowing their vote was not really necessary to ensure it didn't pass?

2. What do you think their motives were for missing the vote?

3. For both candidates - Kerry and Bush - is it ok for them to sometimes skip out of their duties to campaign provided they are there when it counts?

I guess I'll state my beef with Kerry/Edward's noticeable absence. It isn't based so much on facts as personal preferences. Short and sweet.

Politicians will pander to their base with plenty of lip service, but this isn't the first time Kerry dodges (or excuses) an important vote he feels "strongly" about. The first was missing/skipping the vote to extend unemployment benefits after blathering about the Bush's callous attitude towards the poor in general. I remember the vote was brought up by a liberal on this forum but my search turned up empty.

Kerry raised at least 34 million by early June, a fairly good indicator of public discontent. Amendment votes in general do not slip under the radar like The Patriot Act. The FMA wasn't an exception. I agree it's a no-win vote for Democrats in general, not just Kerry, and it's humorously ironic that the "conservative" party would force the liberal counterpart to cast a conservative vote, but the Mass. Senator could have taken a stand with his party. He had sufficient notice to make arrangements and hop on his private jet for a vote. Instead of using their time wisely someone in their campaign thought staged campaign stops was a good idea.

I'll probably vote for Kerry but at this point I hope Bush gets reelected (elected?) and public discontent will turn on upcoming Senate/House elections: