I Read Mother Jones so You don't Have To

Here's an interesting article from Mother Jones.  (That's the first time that phrase has been written in espresso pundit.)

John McCain hasn't voted in five Weeks.  Seriously.

Back in April we noted that John McCain had been too busy straight-talking on the campaign trail to vote on important legislation on Iraq. Turns out -- and this is kind of insane -- McCain hasn't voted since.

Yeah, that's right. McCain has gone five straight weeks without casting a vote in the Senate -- he's missed 43 straight votes. If he misses the next three votes, he'll have been absent for 50 percent of the votes in the 110th Congress.

And this isn't an inevitable product of running for president. Hillary Clinton has missed just 1.8 percent of the votes this year and Barack Obama has missed 6.4 percent.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that McCain is the only candidate in Congress who has done this before. He ran for president in 2000! He should know how to do it without looking like an idiot with an absentee problem. What on earth must the people of Arizona think?

Lord knows we aren't huge McCain fans around here, but good heavens John, you're better than this.

Comments

[Karen of Scottsdale]

It seems we ought to be able to fire those we elect to represent us when they do not perform their job duties.

[Timothy S. Carlson]

I think there's going to be a lot of pink slips in congress after the next election.

[Geoff]

Maybe he could adopt Pederson's campaign slogan...Nobody's Senator.

[cactusmouse1]

He doesn't want to be held accountable for his votes.

[NICK]

I voted for john!

I sent a letter Thursday that I
will vote for john to exit office
if the Lefties manage to bring recall
to a vote.

[ron]

I know I don't get a paycheck at my work if I don't show up, maybe we should pass a law that congressmen lose the day's wages if they don't show up.

Another thought - he could be honest enough to send the pay back - oh, silly thought! we are talking about 'straight talk' John, are we not?

just a thought.

[Tim]

On the plus side, if he's not there, he can't be introducing anymore legislation! So where do Feingold and Kennedy go now to get bills they can call "bi-partisan"?

[John]

Apparently, they go to Jon Kyl!

[Mark]

Blah blah blah - if his vote mattered then he would be there. Let's not make something out of nothing. If McCain had a 100% voting record for this Congress it would not have changed the outcome of a single piece of legislation.

I, for one, would rather have the most pro-war candidate win this election so the cowardly left knows how badly they got beat and that most americans do not support their anti-American defeatism.

[Doug]

Is that like saying, "why should I vote in the next election, my vote won't change a single outcome?"

[Mark]

No Doug - it is not. The Senate and House have whips and it is their job to tell the majority leader or minority leader how many votes their side has. Now, by the time the vote is called both sides generally know the outcome before the vote even happens, with some rare exceptions. All of the votes McCain missed didn't affect the outcome of the vote. If they had McCain would have been there to vote.

This is a very simple subject - I am surprised so many are confounded by this. I am starting to see why my party lost last November. Conservatives traditionally stand for right and for reason. When I read the comments here and listen to the rabid xenophobes in my party on immigration reform I am saddened to see both right and reason being abandoned for sophistry, which is the modus operandi of the left.

[BobH]

On the part about the importance of the votes, I agree with you, Mark. Few issues in the senate turn on a single vote, and if something of importance is likely to be close, everyone knows it well in advance.

Nonetheless, missing so many votes is bad politics for McCain, although it really hasn't turned into much of an issue so far (Mother Jones doesn't carry much weight, obviously), so maybe it will continue to be a nothing.

[Timothy S. Carlson]

I'm of the opinion if a Congressman is serious about running for President, he/she should be required to relinquish their seat in the House/Senate. Everyone knows that the effort involved in running a Presidential race seriously affects the ability to do pretty much anything else. If John stepped down, it would allow a replacement to be appointed / special elected who would be able to give the constituents the attention they deserve.

Plus - if this rule was in effect, John Kerry would be retired now :P

I just don't like the fact that we pretty much get ignored for 6mos? 12mos? now almost 18mos - and if McCain loses, he has a fallback.

[Timothy S. Carlson]

Heh, seems like Russell Pierce feels the same way I do - He's calling for John McCain to resign his Senate seat over concerns that Arizona's interests are not being guarded with
John missing so many votes.

[ron]

Timothy,

As if John McCain needs a job to fall back on to - give me a break

The same applies to John Kerry.

[Timothy S. Carlson]

It not about money - it's about power.
It's good to be the Senator.

[Timothy S. Carlson]

Heh - my apologies to Russell for spelling his last name incorrectly.

Pearce - not Pierce.