There is one job a Senator has that can't be done by anyone else

[dsc]

and that is voting. Missing yesterday's vote for a meeting about seeking a new job wasn't right. He should have excused himself from the meeting, went to vote, and continue the meeting. One of the pitfalls for any senator who runs for President is the fact he or she will miss votes. It is one thing to miss a routine vote because you are in Iowa or New Hampshire. It is quite another to be in DC on the day of an important vote and miss it to attend to your presidential campaign. Yes, in the grand scheme we would have lost even with Sanders' vote. But it should have been cast.

[katmondoo]

1. I agree

[MrsCoffee]

2. He was at his all day meeting for an hour. Flimsy excuse.

[JI7]

3. maybe he just didn't want to vote on it

[WhiteTara]

4. ding ding ding

The bell just went off.

[EffieBlack]

6. Perfectly stated!

[NotHardly]

7. Sanders

It was telling behavior. He told us how he will vote on things important to us by not voting.

[MadDAsHell]

8. There's no such thing as a routine vote. They were elected to vote, not to campaign. nt

[NurseJackie]

9. Yes it definitely should have been...

But it should have been cast.

Yes it definitely should have been. And everything else you've noted is correct as well.

But, considering the documented history of previous votes (and statements) it's unclear to me how he would have voted anyway. Would he do an about-face and vote in favor of Russian sanctions that have been so strongly opposed in the past? Or would he risk voting with the GOP and giving a present to Russia?

All I'm saying is that given those two "difficult" options, not many people are surprised that he found a convenient way to be "too busy" to attend and go on the record when the chips were down and ALL VOICES needed to be heard.

These are legitimate and fair questions. People deserve to hear honest answers. People have a right to know EXACTLY where their representatives stand on things like this.

[uriel1972]

13. Isn't it possible to abstain in a US senate vote?

[NurseJackie]

14. Yes. I believe someone can vote "present" ...

... to indicate they didn't care one way or another. It they can just not show up.

[The Mouth]

10. Why can they not vote remotely?

I see nothing in the Constitution that says any official has to be there in person.

Seems utterly silly in this age of phones and email (hell, utterly silly since the invention of the telegraph).

[NurseJackie]

11. Why can't that just all show up?

[EffieBlack]

19. I mean, really

[EffieBlack]

18. Because one of the points of Congress is for its members to convene, interact and deliberate

None of which would happen if they could phone it in from bed.

It's not exactly forced labor to expect them to show up to vote ...

[The Mouth]

20. I don't disagree with that, but

in the cases where they are legitimately back in their district.

Just seems silly- we have video conferencing, the internet... Nothing wrong with interacting or deliberating, of course, but ZERO excuser to miss a vote just because they aren't physically present.

Not arguing that the overpaid lazy-asses should be at work, obviously, they should; but not voting because of not being there?

[JHan]

12. yup

[yardwork]

15. I agree.

[allgood33]

16. His past votes on Russian sanctions is troubling as well.

There is something really ugly hidden underneath it all. Can't quite put my finger on it but here are some names rolling around in my head and the interconnection of some of the players...

Ed Shultz, Nina Turner, Russian TV, Black Lives Matter, Hillary hate, Russian donations, Russian trolling black voters, Klein, Devome. "Russian interference is a diversion", "not important to other issues", contributions to campaign from Russians, DNC contributor info breech, tax returns, . Go figure.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

17. Does this REALLY surprise anyone ?

Because it didn't surprise me one bit. This is who he is.