Quotes About Politics

You mentioned Ross Perot. Mr. Perot jumped into the race at the last minute, had one issue that he ran on, the budget deficit, was in and out of the race a couple of times, and still got 20 million votes, didn't have the Internet.

Even if you only counted the votes that actually made it through the hoops in order to be cast, the president was really Al Gore.

If I move one way, I lose a couple votes. If I move another way, I lose a couple votes.

We've seen filibusters of bills and nominations that ultimately passed with 90 or more votes. Why filibuster something that has that kind of support? Just to slow down the process and keep the Senate from working.

Let's not just look at it as taking votes away from Gore. Our support comes from a lot of people.

Disunity costs votes.

I don't think I'll ever fully get over losing the city council seat. I don't know how that happened. But it was less than 1 percent out of 50,000 votes. I'd put in six or seven years into changing L.A.

How it is that within 60 days of a general election issue, groups can no longer tell voters that a Member of Congress votes pro-abortion, against guns, against the environment or whatever else is beyond me.

Well, it seems to me Lincoln, I suppose, is kind of a model of a particular sort of presidency, a presidency that first of all is elected by a minority of the votes.

I'm not an American, Do they count the votes in America? I haven't voted in Jamaica either.

The votes of 60,000 Floridians were not counted. The Court threw out all 60,00 votes. And that's what the newspapers around the country are counting now.

The Senate needs 60 votes to pass anything. They have to compromise with liberal Democrats to spend more money. Even though arguably we have control of the Senate, we really don't.

History shows that people often do cast their votes for amorphous reasons-the most powerful among them being the need for change. Just ask Bill Clinton.

I can't see where there is anywhere left to move. If you don't have a recount it's hard to receive any more votes.

I have no idea what goes on in another person's mind. As a legislator, I need to be good at persuading people, counting votes and getting to 50 percent plus one. I don't go back and say, 'Why did this person get to the right position?' It's only, 'Are you yes or are you no?'

I don't expect people to agree with all my votes.

Bipartisanship has taken us to the brink of bankruptcy. We don't need bipartisanship, we need application of principle... Where was the call for bipartisanship during the Obamacare debate? Not a single Republican voted for it. It wasn't about bipartisanship, it was about having the votes to dictate your will.

Faith is not a political strategy and should not be a political strategy. If it is being used as a tool to garner votes, to convince people they should support one political party or the other, I think that is a huge mistake.

Labour long ago realised it could no longer automatically assume that it would win elections in Glasgow and other places where it has taken people's votes for granted for decades - as we have seen across Scotland at local council and Holyrood elections.

We don't go to war on narrow, partisan votes.

Common wisdom dictates that the vice president should provide balance to the ticket by representing a different part of the country, another set of experiences, or a basketful of electoral votes.

Politicians often say to me, 'Articles in the 'Observer' don't get me votes, but you get me money.'

In the Senate, where 60 votes are required to do anything important, you have to work with your colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Incumbents are safe, but party majorities are not. This fosters symbolic votes, message politics and little serious legislating in Congress.