Why did these presidential candidates not show up to vote on the bid of 'no confidence' for Gonzo?

Question

Do not want to hear that campaigning kept them from it - Hillary managed to vote. If these potential candidates do not think voting and doing their job is important, can we expect more of the same if they are elected?
Biden (D-DE)
Brownback (R-KS)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)
These did not vote at all.

I did not say I thought this vote was a good idea, I just think that is a potential candidate cannot do the job they already hold because they are trying to get a better job, maybe we need to cut them loose and free up their time to campaign and put somebody in that has time to vote on issues - regardless of how irrelevant the issue may be, the people that elected a Representative deserve to have that Rep vote.

Answer 1

This vote was non-binding and largely symbolic. While I do believe it important that candidates take a stand one way or the other on Gonzo, this vote was not crucial.
On the same day, Gonzalez and Bush's Justice Department had a much more significant setback in the way they administer justice (or fail to administer justice), when a federal appeals court in Virginia issued a scathing opinion regarding U.S. policies on "enemy combatants". The 86 page opinion declared the Justice Department's detainee policy unconstitutional. The court ruled that the "President cannot eliminate Constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen." It was also stated that "for the courts to uphold a claim to such extraordinary powers would effectively undermine all the freedoms under the Constitution."

Answer 2

Because they didn't want it held against them. Especially the Republicans didn't want to betray their party regardless of their own beliefs. Unlike Spector R-PA who has been outspoken and voted no confidence. Yet when Clinton lied about his sex life, the R's wanted impeachment. The R's held investigations about where the stamp money came to return replies for the fan mail for the Clinton's cat! So both parties do it and both suck. I think the American people are ready for some politicians who have integrity. Both these parties are like kids with huge sibling rivalry issues. They won't vote for what is best-even what they people want-because they are too busy competing.

Answer 3

I think the ones who did not vote were smart. The no-confidence vote was a ridiculous idea. A n-c vote only applies to parliamentary forms of government. In the US it is meaningless. The President chose Mr. Gonzales, and the Senate approved his appointment. That's the way the system works. Check the Constitution.

Nice pic.

Answer 4

I have a hard time answering your Boobs and Crotch. Considering Clinton wasted No time in firing 90 Bush 1 Leftovers it seems 8 clinton holdovers getting 6 years into the Bush 2 administration was a no brainer. Gonzo did as he should have and Knowing this any one of these candidates would be called to the Floor if elected and did as Bill did!

Answer 5

Because they're smarter than the ones who did vote. This country has major problems that need solving and this is another example of politicians spending time on something as meaningless as a "vote of no confidence".

Answer 6

I assume they didn't think it was worth their time. I for one will not vote for any senator. Running for pres is a 100 hour a week job. I think being a senator is at least a 40 hour/week job. Either you want to be a senator or run for pres, not both.

Answer 7

So the point is that Hillary is fantastic.

Answer 8

"Gonzales" had full constitutional authority to fire those atorneys, so a no-confidence vote doesn't really mean anything. Instead of witch-hunting, liberals should maybe start focusing on more positive things.

Answer 9

its a waste of time they seem to know it.