Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Why did Obama & Biden do something so unprecedented in order to avoid voting on the auto bailout?

Obama and Biden resigned from the Senate effective today 11/16. Ok... I've done a little research here. Since the beginning of the 20th Century until now, there have been 24 men elected to the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency whose election necessitated their resignation from another elected office. Never ever before, has any of them resigned their former office before the Electoral College votes on Dec 12. In fact, the vast majority of them remained in their offices until well into January. Could it be that they both want to avoid the lame-duck session of Congress and not have to cast a vote against the Auto Industry Bailout, hoping not to alienate swing State voters and the DEMOCRATIC Michigan congressional delegation? Why else would they do it?

Update:

Matt: wrong. At least 9 of the other 24 assumed office during Wars and Recession-Depression. Staying in the Senate doesn't keep them from working on Bush's pile. They've been running for President for 2 years... that has kept them both pretty busy and they didn't need to resign their offices. I think it's because Obama is on record supporting the bailout but doesn't really want it to pass. If it doesn't, he takes no balme this way. If he and Biden are the deciding votes, then they are stuck with the bailout. If they stay in and vote their conscience, they alienate Levin (who they really need), Stabenow, Granholm, and get blamed for millions of people losing their jobs in swing States across the midwest. Rock and a hard Place... so they said screw it and resigned to work on "the pile". Some change, huh?

21 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    President-Elect Pelosi will take the heat for this one.

    As for Obama/Biden resigning, how would the press spin that one? Obama can do no wrong. Wait, we won't even hear about it.

    Anybody have any spare "change?"

    Source(s): Me- anarcho-syndicalist
  • 1 decade ago

    thats because besides kennedy, there have been no other presidents elected who were senators. Its different when you are a governor and president-elect at the same time, because you are mostly tending to noncontroversial issues and day-to-day normal things. Senators on the other hand face a much more argumentative arena and for Obama, it is important that he not remain in the Senate because it sends the wrong level and would overshadow then entire process. Any other year, he might have stayed because usually there is just a lame duck session, but this year with the tanking economy, he must get out so as not to reduce his role to one of a normal partisan. Its nothing about avoiding controversial decisions, its just about not overshadowing his senate colleagues and not making a scene.

  • Dani
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Ya need to check your facts John Kennedy resigned from the Senate when he won the nomination.We elected 16 presidents in the twentieth century and only three were in Congress. In my life time, I am 58 we have only had four VP who were in Congress.

    To answer your question, no they resigned so that their replacements would have seniority. Since both come from states with a Democratic governor they know a Democrat will replace them..

    I don't mean to be insulting but when you make up fact to prove a point it makes you look stupid.

  • 1 decade ago

    Obama was due to resign this month it had nothing to do with the big three bail out because they both support it, Obama is working on finding someone who can help set responsible and fair fuel efficiency standards for the Auto industry in exchange for the bailout. As it stands someone else has been taking care of their duties in the senate since the election began, for Obama it was his chief of staff of the senate (Pete Rouse) and he has other duties and possibly a new job in the new administration.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Got it all figgered out, do ya?

    Consider - please - an alternative or set of alternatives, okay?

    Getting replacements ASAP, as pointed out, gets them a bit of a jump on seniority.

    It ALSO gets a working replacement up-and-running faster, sooner. After all, the NEW Senators will have to 'transition,' right?

    This also allows the new Vp-POTUS team to concentrate on one obligation instead of 2. Why does everyone's motives and actions have to be sinister -- dare I say almost conspiratorial? -- or 'dark' in intent? Maybe you're witnessing a team of people who REALLY want to be prepared so they can hit the ground running.

    And they will have a lot of catching up to do to begin to make a dent in the messes--plural-- that Bush, et al., are leaving behind. How about watching what they do, when they do it, once they're in office instead of ascribing nefarious motives to them all the time.

  • 1 decade ago

    There is a very good reason for them to resign early (and BTW Biden hasn't yet resigned only Obama). Because seniority is based on length of service. Sen Obama's replacement will have seniority over the Senators coming in in January.

    It is a minor point but one with value in terms of committee assignments etc.

  • 1 decade ago

    Obama is very clearly on the record as supporting the bailout, he's been lobbying hard for it. He wouldn't do that if he didn't want it to succeed. In any case, I'd be shocked if the bailout doesn't pass anyway (much to my dismay, I think it's a horrible idea).

    Obama/Biden already won the election anyway, there's no reason for them to care what people in Michigan think anymore. Obama's next election is four years away, today's issues will be long forgotten by then.

  • 1 decade ago

    Obama obviously did NOT resign his post to avoid the vote. He already stated very clearly his position on that and especially his position on the US auto makers getting a fair share of the money.

    He probably did it so that his successor from Illinois will be able to be on record as having voted on the bill.

  • 1 decade ago

    Your premise makes zero sense. They're politicians. Why would they make this move purely to surrender their power to influence? Especially since, as so many have pointed out, Obama has already publicly stated his position.

    Are you saying that this would cause them trouble come re-election time? I wish I could remember who said this on TV the other day, but someone pointed out, "Americans pace back and forth waiting for the microwave." We have the attention spans of ADHD gnats. In 2012, 2008 will be one and the same as the 10th century to the electorate.

    Not to over-generalize.

    EDIT: "voting present" -- this is as tired as "Gore invented the Internet."

    Obama voted "present" 130 times out of over 4,000 votes he cast in the Illinois lege. And even in those few times, it was typically done for very sound strategic reasons.

  • bence
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    No, yet he does have a foul habit of no longer committing himself tp vote for any type of bill. He'd truly answer 'modern-day' in spite of the undeniable fact that in spite of this very undesirable presidential habit the human beings nevertheless chosen to elect him.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.