Centerfield

It may be partisan politics but I think it matters nonetheless. This kind of issue resounds with people because Kerry is getting paid for a job he isn't doing. Most people in the real world hold contempt for someone who gets paid for a job but doesn't do it, whether he's trying to get another better job or not. I know I do. Lots of Americans are going to give a rat's ass about this. And if the GOP is playing politics, so is Kerry. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too. I think this is a small window into the man himself. I don't like the picture personally.

I agree with Matt. Ideally he'd bail, but things aren't ideal. Besides, if Bush can manage to campaign and be President, then surely Kerry can multi-task as well. I think it's hard to argue that Kerry is not following what's going on in the Senate. He has a staff. And clearly he hasn't missed any important votes even though the GOp has aditted that they've manufactured this appearance several times.

I think Kerry should be forthright and combative on this, that he's not going to resign and give a senate seat to those he perceives as the bad guys. It's a pretty strong argument that, believing in the policies he does, that even as a sometimes absentee, he furthers those policies much moreso than a GOP replacement would. So I absolutely don't see it a sign of a character flaw, not when the realistic results of staying are compared to those of resigning.

Jerkwads like Mitt Romney and the lieutenant governor/non-entity Kerry Healey are doing some very pious and disingenuous piling on here. Since as Republicans they disagree with Kerry's policies, how can they honestly argue that his absence is a bad thing. They just want to push him to resign so they can plug in one of their buddies. Ultimately this sort of grandstanding is pretty transparent, IMO.

Unless someone can point to a a particular instance where something bad happened because Kerry was out campaigning, (and NOT manufactured vote counts!) I see this as a non-starter. It's not like Kerry doesn't have staff eyes all over the senate, or that he's not in the loop.

I think there are no voters who change their minds about who to vote for over this. It's a thing that will be whined about by those who oppose Kerry and would never support him, ignored or defended by his supporters, and dismissed by undecided independents who will make a decision based on far more important criteria.

Any congressman, at any level, who misses 89% of the votes should be impeached for deriliction of duty (or whatever the phrase might be).

There should be no provision for running for President, Governor, Mayor or dogcatcher.

This is ridiculous. And I would so in this situation no matter what party I was with.

"I think there are no voters who change their minds about who to vote for over this. It's a thing that will be whined about by those who oppose Kerry and would never support him, ignored or defended by his supporters, and dismissed by undecided independents who will make a decision based on far more important criteria."

While largely I think this is on target, it still doesn't make Kerry's missing votes a "non-issue." This is the type of thing that keeps me from throwing my vote into Kerry's column. While I'm certainly not voting for Bush, this is the type of thing that would lead me to vote third party or just leave the Presidential line blank. And being in a really tight swing state this is the type of thing that could make a difference.

Given the nature of what's required to become president, it's virtually impossible for a senator to attend all the votes. He would have to stop campaigning, at the same time that Bush continued to pummel him with ads. It's naive to think that he could wait until the fall and begin campaigning. If he wasn't out campaigning and was in the senate, people would complain that he wasn't being seen and heard by the American people. It's a no-win situation and maybe that's why no senator has been elected since JFK. The fact is the absence of one senator is not going to make much difference to the functioning of the senate so long as he makes it back for key votes. These people are spending half their time campaigning or raising money anyway. Obviously, it would be better if we could go back to the 19th century where campaigns were more limited, but that's not going to happen.

I do think this might be a problem for Kerry. Some people probably will look at it as if he is not doing his job. But I don't see what choice Kerry has.

This isn't related to the issue of Kerry stepping down, but it turns out that Romney won't be picking Kerry's replacement should he win the presidency. The Massachusetts state senate approved a measure to have a special election for Kerry's replacement instead.

Oops. Forgot the link:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/175/region/Senate_approves_bill_creating_:.shtml

Dear Mathew:

If you keep this up I'll soon have to issue you one of our covert operative CSL (Common Sense Liberal)cards. I've read two of your posts from this week and I agree with both of them. Couple that with the ones I commented on last time in which you were also correct...and I see a pattern emerging.

John Carlson is having a fit, fyi.

Your friend in Marxism,

Comrade Carla

I wouldn't count that MA bill as a "fait accompli" just yet. It has to pass both chambers and get signed by the governor, which it won't. Romney will veto it, and then it will have to get overridden.

It's a case of embarassingly transparent partisanship, and if it passes, this action itself will be a centerpiece example of a campaign issue that all MA republicans are poised to trumpet, which is that the one-party dominance of the democratic party has increasingly made a mockery of democracy in MA.

Yes, I think we have all seen the abuses of power that one-party control leads to. And yes, it's obvious that this was an entirely partisan bill that would not have existed if MA had a Democratic governor. Even so, I have difficulty in seeing how calling for the replacing of appointed officials with elected ones could be a bad thing for democracy.

It's not that its bad per se, it's that it's a clothing of partisanship in lofty self-righteousness.

Plus, appointment by the governor in cases of filling out term remainders is BOTH the norm and a reasonable pragmatic policy. Why spend all that state money and waste all that energy on an election for what would be a term of less than 2 years.

Speaking from practical experience as an old campaigner (OK, a yougish-middle-aged campaigner) this will be a problem for Kerry. Not only does it give the opposition ammunition to attack him with, it gives the impression of a total lack of confidence in his electoral prospects ("I'm not quitting my day job") and reinforces the negative image of a career politician who's more interested in his personal advancement than in the good of his constituents.

If Kerry resigned, Romney would be appointing a replacement who would serve through January 2009, that being the balance of Kerry's term. Kerry was re-elected in 2002.

"All politics is local."--Tip O'Neill, Massachussets Democrat, Speaker of the House 1977-1987.