Well, he’s not a Democrat at all.
So, then I was right! 
Come on, you know what I meant. He ran as a Democrat. I will cop to using the wrong tense. I should have said “was” instead of “is”.
But I get it. I’m not a Democrat, and although I did support Bernie, I do think he should either join the party or get off the bus. There is something that sticks in the craw about someone who joins the party simply for the cache it gives when running for office.
Think of it as a coalition government, the leader of one party allied to the weaker party from which he chooses his minions.
British prime ministers, not just Churchill, were often disconnected from the rest of their alleged party.
Yeah. Besides helping them raise money, being assigned committee positions by the Dems and voting with them, why would anyone think he’s a Democrat?
America is noted for the once-in-a-lifetime brilliant ideas of super-geniuses (Mark Zuckerberg: “I’m putting photos of college students on the Internet!!” or Steve Jobs: “Let’s build a computer without a fan!”) but most real work is much less flamboyent.
Does OP think U.S. governance is waiting for some Brilliant Idea™, for a Senator to introduce a bill that will have Republicans, Democrats, Lions and Lambs popping champagne bottles, cheering that Senator, and all saying “Why didn’t we think of that!” ?
That’s not my impression. I think we pay those guys primarily just to show up now and then and say ‘Aye’ or ‘Nay.’ (Yes, I know they’re also paid to “ask questions” in Committee hearings — from what I’ve seen, their question-asking would often be best subtracted from their salary.)
In those respects, he’s basically a free rider. In exchange for one vote for Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer for leader, he gets many of the benefits of being a Dem, with none of the responsibilities (like raising money for the DNC or Dem candidates in general).
I don’t want Sanders out there talking about deficits. Even if he were a credible voice on that (which, no), he’s more valuable as a spokesperson of oversimplified policy ideas.
Democrats need to dumb everything down. If our plan is a stool with three legs, we should saw off two of those legs. Then we should throw those two at our opponents and pretend the remaining leg is perfectly sufficient. Our plans can’t be so completely empty of policy that when the big day finally comes no one knows what the fuck to do, a memo Sen. McConnell seems to have missed. You cannot go full Republican on this. But the Democrats could definitely stand to get a lot more simple in their policy talk.
That’s a great role for Sanders. He talks about bumper sticker policies, like Medicare for all, that would actually be waaaay more complicated than he realizes. I would never hire him to build and carry out such a policy. But as political messaging? Sure!
Ok, I’m wrong.
Sure, Sanders can talk about anything he wants. I propose that whoever the top non-Republican on the Budget Committee is, that person should be working on the Dems fiscal policy. I also want the top Dem on the Foreign Relations Committee working on foreign policy, and the top Dem on the Health Committee working on health care. Outrageous, I know.
I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that what Sanders is working on as a member of the Budget Committee has fuckall to do with what he is saying and doing in public.
Is that assumption wrong? Or is your argument that these people can only be effective if they are making a public case?
It still makes me cringe.
What is he working on as ranking member of Budget? I follow those issues pretty closely, and I can’t tell. I’m not saying that he needs to make a national address on the issue, but he seems to be totally missing in action.
I have no idea! My assumption is that members of committees may be up to all kinds of activities without any public evidence, but I am prepared to defer entirely to your more expert opinion on the subject.
Anyway, it’s sort of beside the point. I’m just saying that I don’t expect or especially want Bernie to be a policy wonk. Maybe that means someone else should be in that slot. I have no quibble with that. I’d rather he be spending his time talking about how Democrats believe in higher wages and taxing the rich.
His 2020 presidential bid, of course!
But seriously, what is any “ranking member” of a Senate Committee working on? Most likely they are working on fighting against the agenda of the Chairman of that committee, which they are not.
Raveman, you probably have a few more trusted sources than me, so for comparison have you looked into what the top Republican, Mike Enzi is saying on the subjects you listed in the OP? A quick search tells me he’s mainly talking about changing the budget process.
The next Continuing Resolution, of course. We don’t have budgets anymore.
There’s no question that Enzi is actively working on setting up a new budget framework that would allow Republicans to try to jam through tax reform without a filibuster.
And in fairness to Sanders, such is the obligation of a committee chairman. He or she HAS to be drafting legislation like this, otherwise it literally doesn’t get done at all. The ranking member has the luxury of choosing whether to set out alternative policies to the ones that the chairman comes up with, or working to cut deals on the chairman’s proposals that are better for the minority party, or to just do other things. I’m saying to the best of my awareness, Sanders is just choosing to do other things.
The Budget Committee has nothing to do with continuing resolutions. And in fact there was a budget passed for 2017, which was what allowed Republicans to try to jam through health care reform without a filibuster.
Well sure, we can assume Enzi is working on it. But your OP implied that since you can’t find Sanders talking about it then he must be “doing other things”. But what talk do you find from the guy we both assume IS working on it? If you can’t point out a difference between them then your proof isn’t proof of anything.