If David Axelrod went on to eight years in the Senate and then a stint as SoS, he’d be hella qualified.
Actually I read fine. It seems that that is the problem: I read the actual link offered and all of the data in it and not just what seem to be the more meaningless metrics that you want to focus on: that he failed to pass legislation that he wanted done hundreds and hundreds of times.
He may be near the top for picking his nose the most of all Congresscritters and I also do not think that demonstrates his Presidential ability either … but no worse than how many bills he sponsored and co-sponsored that failed. Neither are actual accomplishments to be proud of.
His measurable track record in Congress of getting anything meaningful done was unimpressive and he is near the bottom in even bothering to be there to vote and thus part of the process. Barbara Boxer he aint; she got things done. While she was introducing and getting passed a bipartisan amendment toban the future use of taxpayer funds to bail out banks he failed to create a national credit usury rate of 15% but did manage to squeak a one-time partial audit of the GAO in. (Which found nothing that was not already known.)
Funnily enough Rand Paul is not running to be the Democratic nominee for President. If he was there would be bigger issues for him than his poor record of getting things done in Congress! Hillary Clinton is. And I indeed did point out that her Senate record has just as little to show for it. But then few are trying to oddly point to her number of failed bills sponsored as something to be proud of, and as proof that she gets things done. They instead note things she did do. … Yes because reasons: doing so in this context would be idiotic.
Okay, Sanders is so … solidly … principled and to the left that expecting him to actually accomplish getting something enacted is unrealistic. Is that your current position? Or is your position that trying and failing hundreds of times is proof that he is capable of getting things done? Or just that it wasn’t his fault that he failed where Boxer was able to accomplish so much because of … reasons … and his trying against the odds is enough to show how qualified he is? Or noble in a Don Quixote sort of way? I apparently don’t read so well, so use small words and clarify please.
They both have experience in Congress and both did little of measurable significant substance while there. To her small credit she got her nothing done in less time than he did … efficiency at least! 
Maybe one or the other of them did more behind the scenes, maybe one gave convincing oration that help swing votes to block or pass bills that mattered? We don’t know.
The question however remains how would a President Sanders accomplish any of his agenda? He and his campaign manager say that they will (by way of an unrevealed secret plan) lead a downticket revolutionary tsunami of progressives into control of both houses and that unless that occurs “forget about it.”
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes.
Everybody keep the faith
For certain as our banner flies
We are not alone
The people too must rise
Here they talked of revolution.
Here it was they lit the flame.
Here they sang about tomorrow
And tomorrow never came.
He would, but I doubt he’d claim 35 years of experience, because that would count time when he wasn’t actually in charge of anything in government.
Clinton actually has 12 years of experience. Which is quite adequate at this point, but not in the class of Biden, Sanders, O’Malley, or Chaffee. She is the least experienced candidate in the entire field.
Of course Axelrod would count his time in the WH. Are you serious with this? :rolleyes:
He could count it, but it wouldn’t be very impressive since he wasn’t responsible for anything but offering his opinion to the President.
Clinton is implying something else entirely with her “35 years of experience” claims. Which is why she should be asked for specifics.
Pffft. Most people in politics would take the chance to be in Axelrod’s shoes over:
–20 years in the House without being a committee chair
–a term as governor of a small state
–a second tier Cabinet position
I can’t decide what most people would say when it comes to a backbench Senate seat, but for me personally, I’d take the President’s inner circle without any hesitation.
But again, that’s not experience, anymore than an influential lobbyist is experienced. The job just involves telling the President what you think, a job which literally anyone can do.
By contrast, a mayor has more responsibility, plus unlike Hillary, he’s gone before the voters more. Clinton has stood for election three times. All of her opponents have been through that process more except for Jim Webb, and he trumps her on administrative experience having run the Navy Dept and being a longtime military leader in general.
But I concede you could be right. Which is why when she claims experience, the next journalist that hears that should ask her what she means. I have a feeling that what actually comes out of her mouth won’t be too impressive. Her experience is much more impressive-sounding when it’s implied rather than specified.
I’m pretty sure both George H.W. Bush and Al Gore touted their Vice Presidential stints as experience in their bids for the WH - and they arguably had less influence than Hillary or Axelrod.
You’ll note that no candidate is actually dinging Clinton for her First Lady experience. Rubio even during the Republican debate said if the election was about experience (to deflect questions about his lack of experience), Hillary Clinton should be President.
VPs are actually put in charge of things. Al Gore was put in charge of the Reinventing Government Initiative. They are also in attendance at NSA meetings. First Ladies have no authority over anything and are not authorized to be in national security meetings.
Monica Lewinsky has similar experience to Hillary Clinton, just for a shorter time.
I’m sure if that was the case the GOP would be making those arguments instead of acknowledging she has a ton of governmental experience.
Also, I wonder why the Republicans called it Hilarycare if she wasn’t put in charge of it. Hmmm… that’s curious. 
So by that logic, someone who spent six years making $1,000 an hour as a management consultant would not be able to put that on their resume because it’s just “telling people what they think”. 
OK, whatever: I’m done with this topic. Someone is wrong on the Internet and I am finished explaining how. Which is not to say I am done talking to you forever: I will gladly jump in when you are wrong about something else and explain that to you, unless and until it starts to seem fruitless as in this case. Heck, I might even acknowledge you being right on occasion as I have at least once before.
I guess Bill Gates erred in not having his wife succeed him as Microsoft CEO, with the vast experience she had being the wife of a tech CEO.
I read that, and I thought it was…very excited and optimistic, but not in a convincing way.
I hope that a march will help. But the people who need help in this economy may not be able to take time to march. And the voters they need to convince may not be able either.
A high-productivity society with little vacation time doesn’t respond especially well to marchers and protesters; it sees them as “slackers,” with (gasp!) free time and means, ostensibly unlike the rest of us responsible types and helpless peons. It’s unfair and kind of sick, but it happens. Look at the contempt in some quarters for Occupy.
As for leveraging social media, wow, I hope so. And maybe Bernie’s campaign is exploiting parts of social media better. I don’t know. I have my own bubble, and can’t see what the other guys are doing.
I made a chart since maybe that might help you out. Comparing Sanders to his peers (in this case people from Congress who are also running for President) he has nothing to be ashamed of.
Unlike everyone else on that chart, he was not a member of the majority party. That’s a huge advantage in Congress, a place where you can’t even get a vote on something without the heads of the majority party allowing it.
Bernie also has the self-imposed disadvantage of being the farthest left Senator by far. Some of us view that as a positive though in the case of being 1% of Congress, it makes things more difficult. Heck, he isn’t even technically a Democrat as far as Congress is concerned - he caucused with them but he was much farther left than even they are.
Seems to me that those who are nitpicking his achievements don’t know how Congress works. He almost always shows up to vote, is on a large number of committees and subcommittees and has worked with the House and sometimes with Republican Senators to do some things - all in a Congress that prides itself on doing nothing.
The point is that we do know how Congress works, and Sanders’ disadvantages are such that he will not be able to achieve anything as President either. The Democrats will probably not control Congress in 2016, and even if they do, Sanders is so far to the left that he will not get any legislation thru just as he did not get any legislation thru when the Democrats controlled Congress.
‘He didn’t get anything done as a Congressman, and here’s why.’ The ‘why’ still applies, so he isn’t going to get anything done as President either.
Regards,
Shodan
Does that mean that he’ll get the vote of the people who want to see the government not get anything done?
No, those people are already voting for Trump.
Regards,
Shodan
Incorrect. Obama dealt with the most obstructionist Congress imaginable yet he still accomplished things.
Demonstratively false unless you feel that all five Republican candidates coming out of Congress also didn’t get anything done and therefore shouldn’t be President either.
-
I have govtrack listing [=28"]a total of 3 bills](Search Bills in Congress - GovTrack.us[) of his enacted while in Congress 25 years out of 332 that made it to committee. Two that renamed post offices and one that added a cost of living adjustment to veterans compensation. So they list one that really did anything. Color me unimpressed.
-
No question that I would prefer him to any of the GOP candidates. Most are also posturing do-nothings. Indeed it seems most of Congress is. But none of the GOP candidates are running for the Democratic nomination. That said using Cruz whoops Sanders as far as your chart goes and Rubio, with one trivial bill enacted in 5 years is looking fairly good compared to Sanders’ 25 years of do-nothing.
-
Incorrect statement that he was not ever in the majority party. A lot of the time he was, including half the time he was in the Senate.
-
If his qualification is that he was an effective Congresscritter, not the main skill I am looking for but it is what is being touted, then he was not one of the few who have been. Like most there what we have evidence of is being good at posturing not doing.
Sanders didn’t, which is kind of the point of the thread.
Regards,
Shodan