"So unless the GOP can show how anything important failed to pass because one of these guys wasn't present for a vote, they should just shut up."

Irony of ironies -- I bet the Dems could show that Gephardt's absentee record has hurt their party. It's just plain lame for Republicans to be making these attacks.

The fact that you and I are paying people to do a job that they are not doing doesn't bother you at all?
I can see missing a few votes but some of them are missing a whole lot more.

No, it doesn't bother me at all. We don't pay them to vote. We pay them to represent their constituents. If they can honestly say that none of the votes they missed would have resulted in any change for the people in their districts or states, then they've represented their constitutents' interests just fine.

Besides, how is any politician of any party supposed to campaign for office if we expect him to be in Washington all the time, casting meaningless votes that don't change the outcome?

You can (and have) made a case that it is irrelevant, but I fail to see how it is unfair.

Dean, I have a couple questions.

First, if reps don't ever (say) vote, just how the hell can they represent their constituents? Yes, I'm taking it to a logical absurdity, but that's the end result of what you said, isn't it?

I will agree that missing occasional votes (especially on boilerplate laws) won't kill anyone, but still, isn't voting on laws one of the major ways that these people execute the will of their electorate?

So I disagree with your statement that "We don't pay these guys to vote." Maybe I'm being too literal. :)

And speaking of missing just a few votes, I clicked on the link you provided, and apparently Gephardt has skipped voting on 512 issues?

Isn't that an awful lot? Now, I'm not sure if that claimed 90% is 90% of all bills placed before the House or not, but if it is, that means Dick blew off 90% of his votes this session.

Now, if I do my math right, this data implies that there were 568 issues placed before the House this session. Does anyone have hard data on that?

One other leetle question: the site claims that Gephardt voted for a partial-birth ban six times, but skipped out on the final vote. Same for Edwards. According to the site, in 1998 he was for a ban; now he skips the final vote.

My question is this: is it unfair to call out an opposition leader when they fink out on an sensitive issue like this? If the website is correct in their statement, all the GOP is doing is dogging them for trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth. This is normal politics.

Whether a representative is Republican or Democrat, they are paid by me (and other's in that voting district) to represent us. Just because other representatives do their job, it does not make it ok for mine to not do his.

If they're not going to do their jobs in Congress, they should resign their seats.

These Representatives (and Senators) are "hired" to do a job for the people of their respective districts/States, by representing their views on various issues that come before the national legislature. Those views come in the form of debate on the floor of the House/Senate, and, ultimately, by the votes that are cast. Or not cast, as the case may be. (I can also see missing one or two votes on procedural issues, when conflicting requirements occur, as they do from time to time.)

These "Representatives" receive financial remuneration, paid for by the taxes paid by those constituents (I know, but let's keep this simple, okay?).

Does anyone remember "Taxation without Representation", and how we thought it was such a bad idea that we fought a war over it?

Does it make a difference now?

Another thing that is not addressed is that most of the important work of congress goes on in committee. If he is missing all those votes I would guess that he or they are missing an awful lot of meetings where they are supposed to represent the views of the people who voted them into office.

Once again, if you are well-tuned to the leadership, and the leadership promises to let you know if you're going to be needed for a future vote, I just don't see a problem.

The alternative is to say that no one who's a sitting member of Congress should ever try running for President. That doesn't seem right to me. If you can assure the voters in your district that you're watching out for their interests, that's good enough for me.

If you can assure the voters in your district that you're watching out for their interests, that's good enough for me.

A point that may end up costing Bob Graham his Senate seat, and hand Edwards's over to the Republicans.

Dean,

"If you can assure the voters in your district that you're watching out for their interests, that's good enough for me."

I agree with your point, and ultimately, any representative must answer to his constituency for democracy to exist. I think the counterargument is simply that if Starhawk, edboz, and Robert Crawford were those constituents, they would not be persuaded by "my vote wouldn't have changed anything." I think this would be a reasonable, though not inevitable, conclusion to reach.

I'll also point out that Dick Gephardt resigned his position as House Minority Leader when he started campaigning (and he was replaced by Nancy Pelosi). I don't know if Gephardt also held Ranking Membership on any of the major committees (I doubt it, given the size of the House) or whether he would have resigned those as well. Starhawk's point about the committee work is important--I'm pretty sure that each of the Senate candidates hold a sigificant Ranking Membership, and I'd wonder whether continuing to hold those while campaigning would be destructive to the interests of the Democratic Party in Congress.

Anybody who would say "my vote wouldn't have mattered" has no business being a member of the US Congress. They can be docked pay for every vote they miss. I'd love to see it happen. (I don't think the rule has ever been enforced, mutual assured destruction I guess.

When considering whether a Congressperson is delinquent or not, the main factor is whether that person represented his/her district/state in all ways, not just voting. This includes getting in on debate on the floor, calling other Congresspeople or White House staffers to plead the district/state's case, and the other horse trading that occurs before a bill get a floor vote.

That's a metric with a more complicated ruler.

Regarding Gephardt specifically, one can assume that his position as House Minority Leader was extremely beneficial to his district, and having a President from that district would certainly be of great benefit. Thus, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the voters in his district were very understanding of his current distractions.

And as for the Senators, one must remember that each state has two. As long as you don't deprive your state of both Senators, one can pick up the slack for the other. So, I expect that Kerry, Lieberman, Graham, and Edwards will be fine as long as Kennedy, Dodd, Nelson, and Dole pick up their slack. (Though I can't say I'd feel comfortable, were I a North Carolina Democrat, having Elizabeth Dole take up the state's cause while John Edwards campaigns.)

But as a hypothetical Ohio Democrat, I think I'd have been jangling Kucinich's chain for a while now, given the near-hopelessness of his campaign. Then again, he's also had the fewest problems showing up for floor votes, which suggests he probably hasn't neglected his duties.

Jeff,

Good points, and a few I had not thought of.

As Jeff pointed out, there is a lot more to representing your district or state than voting. Their can even be strategies in not voting(arrangements made to not oppose issues in excahgne for non-opposition on others, etc). The important part to look at is, did the legislation that best benefitted the district, or state, pass or fail and what actions were taken. A congressman who shows up to every vote and does nothing more could be far worse at pushing his agenda than one who never makes a singe vote, yet is constantly making arrangements, deals, determining opposition, crafting legislation to be accemptable, etc.

For the Repiblicans to imply that these congressmen are not doing their jobs based on just one aspect of their jobs is completely unfair, and also typical of political attacks. Just because I happen to support the Republican party, for the most part, doesn't mean that I agree with or support these tactics.

Aaron,

I'm not sure I'd go that far. If a representative misses a large number of votes because he is campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire, there is some reason to suspect that he is not spending his time networking or politicking behind the scenes either, at least, not in the normal legislative sense you were talking about. Sure, voting is only one part of representation, but under these circumstances, it seems plausible that many of the other pieces would be similarly neglected. The difference is that voting records can be easily tabulated numerically, while the other areas can't, but might be circumstantially indicated by the pattern of missed votes.