09-08-2004, 09:48 AM
Yes, every Senator's voting record reflects a mix of his own principles, his constituents' wants and needs, the deals cut supporting one bill to get one you reallly want passed, some based on the national interest, and some the ability or inability to influence others to vote a particular way versus party loyalty.
That last bit is all about leadership: getting other people to what it takes to make your vision of the future a reality.
Leadership as a President is difficult.
Leadership in the Senate, "among peers" is difficult.
The degrees of difficulty are separated by at least one order of magnitude. One can get away with a lot of back room deals as Senators that one cannot pull off as President. Presidents have a different series of authorities and tools to draw from than Senators.
Who is the last Senator who made an outstanding President?
Pres Kennedy was on his way to doing well, he'd had some hiccups, when he died.
Pres Johnson was not particularly good, though he was a very effective Senator.
You start going back, and you start to find that perhaps being a Senator is not an optimal training ground for being President, or maybe the combination of persons and conditionaing as a legislator can make for awkward Oval Office behaviour: particularly post Civil War when the US started to emerge on the international stage and the President had to look both out and in.
Which brings us to the "constituency" bit. Just who is the constituency of the average Senator? Who does he or she really look out for? Is it the voter, the "party and the backers who got them there" is it the donors to the campaign?
This puts into stark relief the real dilemma of American politics. Are serving legislators at the Federal level merely front men and women for particulary cliques or power blocks, or are there some real leaders out there? That is what America needs to decide before it pulls the lever and hangs the Chad this November.
Teddy Roosevelt, where are you?
Occhi
That last bit is all about leadership: getting other people to what it takes to make your vision of the future a reality.
Leadership as a President is difficult.
Leadership in the Senate, "among peers" is difficult.
The degrees of difficulty are separated by at least one order of magnitude. One can get away with a lot of back room deals as Senators that one cannot pull off as President. Presidents have a different series of authorities and tools to draw from than Senators.
Who is the last Senator who made an outstanding President?
Pres Kennedy was on his way to doing well, he'd had some hiccups, when he died.
Pres Johnson was not particularly good, though he was a very effective Senator.
You start going back, and you start to find that perhaps being a Senator is not an optimal training ground for being President, or maybe the combination of persons and conditionaing as a legislator can make for awkward Oval Office behaviour: particularly post Civil War when the US started to emerge on the international stage and the President had to look both out and in.
Which brings us to the "constituency" bit. Just who is the constituency of the average Senator? Who does he or she really look out for? Is it the voter, the "party and the backers who got them there" is it the donors to the campaign?
This puts into stark relief the real dilemma of American politics. Are serving legislators at the Federal level merely front men and women for particulary cliques or power blocks, or are there some real leaders out there? That is what America needs to decide before it pulls the lever and hangs the Chad this November.
Teddy Roosevelt, where are you?
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete