GOP congressmen quiting because of Democrats new grueling 5 day workweek

C

Cypress

Well-known member
GOP congressmen quit because of five-day work week.

Nine Republican congressmen have so far announced that they will not be running for re-election. One of those lawmakers, Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL), complained “that the Democrats’ new five-day workweek” is part of the reason they’re all retiring:

“I do think the schedule and the flying is a huge pain for people, particularly those who are from the Midwest or even further West,” he said, adding that it’s “probably the worst part of the job.”

“I think that has played into these retirement announcements,” said the seven-term congressman from Peoria.
Click to expand...

In Dec. 2006, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) also griped about having to work five days each week, stating, “Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families — that’s what this says.”


thinkprogress.org
 
I went to the link and then wandered around a bunch. Here is a something that FLOORED me about this election cycle.

GOP ranks no match for Democrats' legions

By: Jonathan Martin
Oct 10, 2007 03:40 PM EST

The latest source of Republican heartburn: The size and scope of Democratic field organizations in Iowa and New Hampshire dwarf the on-the-ground operations of Republicans.

This David-versus-Goliath staffing mismatch is yet another sign of trouble for Republicans in the general election, said a veteran Republican strategist in Iowa, as it reflects sagging spirits among hard-core GOP activists.

“That’s a function of several things — their race is more interesting, their field is perhaps stronger, they have far more resources, and yes, the number of staff and HQs also adds to their turnout,” said the strategist, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about his party. “Plus, Republicans are in a funk, a general bad mood. It’s a harbinger of tough things to come in 2008 for our down-ballot races.

[Democrats] will have more volunteers, more passion.”Representatives for Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) are cagey about the precise number of boots on the ground they have in the early states — but it’s widely thought to be at least five times what the Republicans have.

And even beyond the Democrats’ well-financed top two candidates, the contrast is stark. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has more than 100 staffers in Iowa, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has over 70 and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd has 60.

Of all the Republicans, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has the most aides heading into the caucuses — 17 (Romney does, though, have a cadre of more than 50 Iowa “super volunteers” who are paid a stipend each month to perform some organizational tasks typically done by unpaid help).

In New Hampshire, the situation is similar.

Romney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani all have about a dozen paid staffers preparing for the primary.

Clinton and Obama both have over five times as many, says a source familiar with their New Hampshire staffing.

And it’s not just bodies; it’s infrastructure, too. None of the Republicans has more than one satellite office beyond their Iowa or New Hampshire state headquarters.

Clinton has 22 separate offices in Iowa and 12 in New Hampshire; Obama has 31 and 11. So why the Grand Canyon-wide organizational gap?

In part, it relates to the other problems the GOP has this cycle, in particular their fundraising deficit.

“It’s the money gap,” said Sara Taylor, an Iowa native who worked on then-Gov. George W. Bush’s caucus effort in 1999 and 2000 before joining the White House as a top political aide. She left the White House earlier this year. “And from a labor perspective, [the Democrats are] probably better at understanding the granular level of politics.”

“Clinton and Obama have more money than the GOP and so they have more staff,” added Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, acknowledging that the gap between the two parties’ candidates was evident in the Granite State.

The veteran Republican strategist in Iowa observes that GOP candidates typically have less paid staff “probably because we think we rely on volunteers more,” but explains that the Democrats’ ground game is just plain stronger — especially this year.

“The truth is, there is just more activity on the Democrat side. They do more calling, door-knocking, canvassing than we do. I’ll bet that as a result, the Democrats will have 50 percent more caucus attendees this year than we will, say 80,000 for us and 120,000 for them


The whole story is two pages long and at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6291.html
 
Haha fuck him then if he can't handle the job.

But on the other hand, Bill Clinton was talking about how the ridiculous hours the Congress is forced to work, including CSPAN moments and backroom negotiating as well as campaigning and fundraising, and how it affects their edginess and irritability.

I have little sympathy for them, but it seems like a physically demanding job. One need look no further than to see how our past two presidents have aged 20 years each in their 8 year terms to see the effects of constant public exposure and attack.
 
Warren said:
Haha fuck him then if he can't handle the job.

But on the other hand, Bill Clinton was talking about how the ridiculous hours the Congress is forced to work, including CSPAN moments and backroom negotiating as well as campaigning and fundraising, and how it affects their edginess and irritability.

I have little sympathy for them, but it seems like a physically demanding job. One need look no further than to see how our past two presidents have aged 20 years each in their 8 year terms to see the effects of constant public exposure and attack.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't have much sympathy either except that there are people I've worked with that commuted across country every week and as you can imagine they said it got old quick. I commuted from S.F. to L.A. every week for a year and I thought that sucked so I can only imagine doing it cross country.
 
Warren said:
Haha fuck him then if he can't handle the job.

But on the other hand, Bill Clinton was talking about how the ridiculous hours the Congress is forced to work, including CSPAN moments and backroom negotiating as well as campaigning and fundraising, and how it affects their edginess and irritability.

I have little sympathy for them, but it seems like a physically demanding job. One need look no further than to see how our past two presidents have aged 20 years each in their 8 year terms to see the effects of constant public exposure and attack.
Click to expand...

I guess I should add I almost don't mind them working short weeks. The less Congress is in session the less damage it can do.
 
cawacko said:
I guess I should add I almost don't mind them working short weeks. The less Congress is in session the less damage it can do.
Click to expand...


they've got plenty of work to do.

the lazy, rubber stamp republican congress didn't do its job. While they were working two days a week and rubberstamping everything bush gave them, while halliburton was ripping off US taxpayers, the iraq war was going to shit in a handbasket, and bush was usurping the bill of rights.

There's enough oversight there alone, to keep congress busy in addition to the appropriations process.
 
Most people aren't expected to permanently live in two places thousands of miles apart. A congressman could move his family to Washington, but then he'd be critiscized for ignoring constituents. This, of course, would primarily effect those with families and those who live out west. I can see his reasoning very easily.

It's his decision, and honestly, I don't see why you guys are whining so much about it.
 
Clinton was talking on the Daily Show about how Washington used to be a place where people would move their families to while Congress was in session, and it made for a more collegial atmosphere & better relationships. He regretted that we lost that, and cited it as a cause of much of the rancor & partisanship we see today.

Leading the free world is no small thing, and it's not for everyone. It is certainly not for people who are unwilling to make sacrifices like a 5-day work week, no matter how far they have to travel.
 
Onceler said:
Clinton was talking on the Daily Show about how Washington used to be a place where people would move their families to while Congress was in session, and it made for a more collegial atmosphere & better relationships. He regretted that we lost that, and cited it as a cause of much of the rancor & partisanship we see today.

Leading the free world is no small thing, and it's not for everyone. It is certainly not for people who are unwilling to make sacrifices like a 5-day work week, no matter how far they have to travel.
Click to expand...

That's a really interesting observation...did he talk at all about why this changed? Why don't they live in DC anymore with their families? Or, in Virginia, or Maryland, both extremely close, and certainly within range of a normal commute?
 
Watermark said:
Most people aren't expected to permanently live in two places thousands of miles apart. A congressman could move his family to Washington, but then he'd be critiscized for ignoring constituents. This, of course, would primarily effect those with families and those who live out west. I can see his reasoning very easily.

It's his decision, and honestly, I don't see why you guys are whining so much about it.
Click to expand...

Well they should not have picked the job then. It is not like they were drafred to it.
 
Onceler said:
Clinton was talking on the Daily Show about how Washington used to be a place where people would move their families to while Congress was in session, and it made for a more collegial atmosphere & better relationships. He regretted that we lost that, and cited it as a cause of much of the rancor & partisanship we see today.

Leading the free world is no small thing, and it's not for everyone. It is certainly not for people who are unwilling to make sacrifices like a 5-day work week, no matter how far they have to travel.
Click to expand...

I was part of the "mobile work force" for about 10 years....
Was on the road most of the time.
 
Darla said:
That's a really interesting observation...did he talk at all about why this changed? Why don't they live in DC anymore with their families? Or, in Virginia, or Maryland, both extremely close, and certainly within range of a normal commute?
Click to expand...

That's a really interesting observation...did he talk at all about why this changed? Why don't they live in DC anymore with their families?

Yes he did. I saw Clinton on the Daily show, too.

In a word: Fundraising.

These days congresswomen/men have to head home a lot, to hobnob with local and state business leaders and interest groups to beg for campaign cash.

In the old days, fundraising was not as time intensive.
 
Warren said:
Lol when I post it I get nothing. When Lori posts it and mentions the Daily show suddenly its an "interesting observation".
Click to expand...

I didn't read yours Warren, don't get like Damo on me, and start expecting me to tell you how pretty you are every day, please, I can't handle another high-maintence message board man! lol
 
Cypress said:
That's a really interesting observation...did he talk at all about why this changed? Why don't they live in DC anymore with their families?

Yes he did. I saw Clinton on the Daily show, too.

In a word: Fundraising.

These days congresswomen/men have to head home a lot, to hobnob with local and state business leaders and interest groups to beg for campaign cash.

In the old days, fundraising was not as time intensive.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top