Column:

Senators hurt by voting records

By Rachel Kaufman

Published Feb. 12, 2008

I’ve never claimed to have the power to predict the future, but I have always been fairly good at deductive reasoning. For example:

[GOP - (former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney / (Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas + former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee)) = Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.].

I’m going out on a limb here to say McCain will be the presidential nominee from the Republican Party. It’s not that Paul and Huckabee aren’t qualified, (well, maybe a little), but they scare the bejesus out of voters. McCain as the nominee is not a bad thing by any means, but it does mark an interesting milestone in presidential history.

You’re probably thinking I’m going to make a “John McCain is old enough to be Sen. Barack Obama’s grandfather” joke, but I’m not. Assuming cable news is right — a 50/50 chance — and McCain holds his lead as the GOP frontrunner all the way to the Republican National Convention, it will mark the first time since 1969 a U.S. Senator will be elected president. We all know Obama, D-Ill., or Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the Democratic nominee, which means they will accomplish what 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry tried to do; ensure a senatorial president.

OK, I get it; no one cares. Why should this matter? Besides impressing your friends with your ever-growing knowledge of useless political facts, when will you ever need to know that the next president will be the first senator-turned-president since Richard Nixon?

Hopefully it makes you wonder why a senator hasn’t been president in four decades. One would think being elected as one of two national representatives for a state would make you the perfect person to oversee the entire country, but only 15 presidents have been senators. Governors have made up 19 of our presidents, which is a position that only focuses on one state in the country. So why is it that these leaders are seen better fit for the presidency than those that serve on congressional committees in D.C. and have national leadership experience?

I have no idea. Perhaps the fact that senators have an actual voting record makes the difference. In the past few presidential elections “flip-flopping” has been used as a negative and condescending characteristic for a candidate. It was probably one of the big reasons why Kerry didn’t win the office in 2004. The three candidates left in the race, Clinton, McCain and Obama, are all being attacked for their voting record in some way. “You voted for the war ... and then against the war” and “You vote against the Republicans” are ringing throughout the airwaves.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we want someone who votes on their own merits rather than a party’s demands? Maybe that’s just me. I’m not very good at moderation regarding anything, but I strive to be one day.

With voting records, anyone can look and see how a senator has changed over time. Believe it or not, things do change. You have to roll with the punches and take ‘em as they come. But when you’re being ridiculed for doing so, it makes you not want to do this. So as the public, let’s step off for a minute, look at the current issues at hand — not at the bickering back and forth and between Ann Coulter and herself - and make modern history by electing a decent senator to lead this country.