Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bernie Sanders says and does (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Bernie Sanders says and does
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Fenring, having failed to convince me is my fault? You're not telling me 2+2=4 and finding that I refuse to be persuaded. Do you think you are?

My claim is that you were not legitimately trying to be persuaded. That's my personal perception, mind you, but since you seemed to come down with several negations of the worth of Sanders' positions the instant you decided our answers were insufficient it's my assumption (subject to error, of course) that you had these objections in mind the whole time and never really thought you'd hear something contrary to them.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're discussing Bernie's qualifications and suitability to the Office, not trying to win the Office for a favored candidate. You'll note that in saying he's not the right person for the job I'm only backing into saying Hillary could be. One more time, I have lots of concerns about her, but she's better suited to the role and responsibilities, IMO. Either of them would be far, far better options than any of the GOP candidates fighting to grab the wheel of the clown car. It is only a matter of opinion, and you might perhaps persuade me that Bernie is a better fit than I think now, but you would have to uncover some information that I don't already know about and make it stick.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't begrudge you that position. A lot of people feel safer voting for a status quo power player than for someone they don't know as well. I view this as an endemic problem, but voting in that manner may have an advantage, which is to say, a lack of instability. I would like to see a little instability, though.

I agree with something I've heard Tom say, which is that in a crowd of random people you're likely to find a number of them more qualified to be a good President than any candidate who is running. I personally don't believe the job requires a politician to do it well, no less a power-monger politician.

I'm also not quite sure why a senator's legislative record matters that much, since the President isn't a legislator. Leadership may be the issue, in which case I'd say leadership by example and on principle trumps leadership by resume any day.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Fenring, having failed to convince me is my fault? You're not telling me 2+2=4 and finding that I refuse to be persuaded. Do you think you are?

Pete, you're picking a nit.

Thanks for your opinion. Mine is that your saying that it isn't the president 's job to
"get the people of the country motivated enough to get their Congressmen to listen to them' that you are picking an eyeball that you have mistaken for a nit [Razz]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

Would you care to address the common idea of the Presidency being a "bully pulpit"? Isn't that exactly the role that you say is not the President's to play?

Also, not to make a direct comparison of people, but rather the necessity of legislative leadership: What were Lincoln's qualifications, specifically legislative? How about Truman, other than chairing an investigative committee, something Sanders would excel at, if given the opportunity?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not his/her Constitutional role, but it's critically important to motivate popular sentiment and support. I was trying to make the point that I think Sanders is a principled but relatively weak legislator, so if he can't grow a pair (as Hillary is reputed to have done) his only recourse is the bully pulpit.

I keep repeating that I like a lot of what he says and stands for, and have read his book detailing his policy positions, but I personally don't think he's a great fit for the Office.

It's purely a matter of opinion. Rather than keep asking me to explain myself, which I seem to do by repeating what I've already said, if you want to convince me you need to make the case that he *is* the right person for the office, not that his views are better.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When you say he's a "weak" legislator, does this mean he isn't part of the lobbyist in-club who have ways of greasing the wheels? If this is what's meant by weak then I want a 'weak' guy in office. And when you say he needs to grow a pair, do you actually mean that he should discard his principles and 'do what it takes' to get things done? If so, I want someone in office who 'does not have a pair.' That is, by your standards of definition. I'd actually define it as being honorable and willing to accept limited amounts of glory in exchange for fighting the good fight. But that's just me.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's purely a matter of opinion. Rather than keep asking me to explain myself, which I seem to do by repeating what I've already said, if you want to convince me you need to make the case that he *is* the right person for the office, not that his views are better.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

I hear what you are saying about weakness, etc.

Not that you need to convince me, but I don't see why a strong legislative background is essential. Cf. Lincoln and Truman. Strong legislators get others to do what they want by promising favors, gaining public support, withholding favors, or having the right idea just as the wave is cresting.

Sanders, as an Independent, is not in a position to promise or withhold favors. He has the right ideas, and they are gaining voter support. I think the wave has not crested, otherwise his legislation would get out of committee.

So his record is not strong. I'm not sure I want the qualities that go along with a "strong legislator". For a strong legislator the means are available to achieve their ends, but the ends often get warped in the process of getting the means. If I want someone who will get stuff done, I would vote for Clinton. If I want the right stuff attempted, I would vote for Sanders.

And finally, you say that if a president does not "have a pair", the only recourse is the bully pulpit. What actions would a president "with a pair" take that Sanders would not?

Threaten opponents? That doesn't work, and makes the atmosphere worse.

Push on Congress? The only lever is the voters, hence the bully pulpit, which you have discounted.

To summarize, what can you do with a pair that Sanders can't do, but should do?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How do you think Johnson got the Civil Rights Act through Congress? What will it take to pass legislation for things the public now wants, including increased gun control. No amount of appeals to public sentiment will work or are needed. It will require legislative muscle to overcome the stubborn and obstinate resistance of legislative leaders in both the House and Senate.

We know that the Congress will refuse anything Obama wants. See my post in another thread that Republicans overwhelmingly disapprove of Obama "pardoning" two turkeys instead of only one. Will Bernie able to make that kind of thing happen? What will it take, if not skill and power by him?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait, you think Hillary will be able to pass through gun control legislation where Obama could not? If you're talking about working with the Republicans on a subject like this I think you're barking up the wrong tree thinking Hillary will appeal to the Republicans more than Sanders will. I don't think they'll like it coming from either candidate, but they'll fight Clinton on everything down the paper it's written on. At least with Sanders I think there could be a chance for legitimate compromise (as opposed to political maneuvering).

As far as the Civil Rights Act goes, in all seriousness I think that after WWII that legislation was inevitable sooner or later. That it happened to get accomplished right at that time is, to whit, a similar scenario to Obama passing the ACA. It wasn't a magical act of leadership, but rather something that had been coming for a quite a while and for which most of the legwork had been done in previous administrations. Not to take away from Obama's accomplishment, but he didn't just conjure the ACA from scratch all of a sudden due to his great leadership.

I think most huge legislative advances are a result of technology or world events, and to an extent long-trending cultural things outside of the purview of a given administration. The most significant changes made to the government in the 20th century were largely accomplished in bizarre circumstances, which include the Federal Reserve Act, New Deal, wartime acts (including the Patriot Act), and maybe soon the TPP. These things didn't come about because of a visionary President, but rather were a sign of the times. If anything some of these huge changes came about as a result of the weakness of a President, but either way I don't think choosing a leader (for my sensibility) is about choosing someone who can unilaterally make a grand accomplishment out of nothing. Unlike Hillary, I think Sanders represents a large movement in the U.S. that has been building for some time, and as velcro notes, this may crest at just the right time for his to get something done. It's just about being in the right place at the right time. If Hillary championed those causes she could probably do it do, but she won't. It's not that Bernie has some special capability that Hillary doesn't; my point is specifically that he is ready to ride the crest of public opinion and try to realize public desires. This, to me, is exactly what a President should be doing anyhow, i.e. representing his people. The bully pulpit comes into play to get people who believe something to go out and do something about it; it's not so much about shaping public opinion as it is about inspiring confidence in every person's ability to make a real change.

[ November 23, 2015, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wait, you think Hillary will be able to pass through gun control legislation where Obama could not?
You make the same mistake over and over again, as if we're having a competition between Hillary (shirts) and Sanders (skins). I'm commenting on skins as not being up to the task and shirts as knowing how to play a little rough and dirty. For the umpteenth time, I'm not trying to convince you that Hillary Is The One. Ok?
quote:
As far as the Civil Rights Act goes, in all seriousness I think that after WWII that legislation was inevitable sooner or later.
Civil Rights legislation was passed almost every year in the 50's, but it made almost no difference. The CRA that Kennedy proposed and Johnson pushed (rammed, maybe is a better word) through the reluctant Congress was different. Recall that today's solid Republican south can be attributed to him losing the Democratic Party below the Mason-Dixon line, which he knew would happen.
quote:
The most significant changes made to the government in the 20th century were largely accomplished in bizarre circumstances, which include the Federal Reserve Act, New Deal, wartime acts (including the Patriot Act), and maybe soon the TPP.
Most of the events weren't bizarre so much as blindly unanticipated. Looking back, all were the result of social, political and economic forces that were not properly recognized and/or managed with rational policies or better regulation.

BTW, you left the ACA off your list. Are you saying that the ACA was the result of bizarre circumstances? Many things are, but that was more an alignment of the stars, more properly known as Democratic control of both Houses of Congress AND the WH. That doesn't happen all that often, either.

Give it a rest. Sanders is a nice gentleman. I hope he receives the recognition he deserves for his many years of service and his fidelity to his principles. Perhaps Hillary will award him the Medal of Freedom.

[ November 23, 2015, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ugh. Is forming American citizens in the face of the Cartel invasion really top of the Democratic Party agenda? That sort of thinking is why I see socialism as an improvement over fascism
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, I know you're not pushing Hillary. I just want to make sure she isn't given credit for things that realistically she won't be able or willing to do. She has other strengths, some of which you listed.

I didn't include the ACA because, for one thing, I'm not in a position yet to say what effect it had on American history. I certainly think it's too early to tell.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

With all due respect, you did not answer my question.

I'll simplify - what did LBJ do, very specifically, to "get" the Civil Rights act through Congress?

I look forward to your response.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can start here. He was a powerful Senate Majority leader and knew how to work the procedures and the phones; he was famous for those things. Public opinion was not altogether behind it (here), so he had no bully pulpit from which to rouse popular pressure on Congress to act. My recollection from the era and later readings is that he overcame (We Shall...) opposition everywhere that sought to defeat the effort. I think it was one of the greatest legislative achievements in federal history.

Let me know if you find information that says otherwise, for instance sources that say that he just sat back and let nature take its course.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

With all due respect, you did not answer my question. Your answer was "he worked the procedures and the phones". Working the procedures means knowing the rules of the Senate. Wikipedia has the rules of the Senate. Sanders is a Senator.

I did the research on how LBJ "worked the phones":

This was a good source.

LBJ worked tirelessly. In a nutshell, he found house members who were vulnerable to pressure, and applied pressure.

quote:
Johnson engaged an army of lieutenants—businessmen, civil-rights leaders, labor officials, journalists, and allies on the Hill—to go out and find votes for the discharge petition. He cut a deal that secured half a dozen votes from the Texas delegation. He showed Martin Luther King Jr. a list of uncommitted Republicans and, as Caro writes, “told King to work on them.” He directed one labor leader to “talk to every human you could,”
The pressure consisted of getting private citizens to pressure lawmakers.

Then he worked with Harry Byrd...
quote:
during an elaborate White House lunch they came to an understanding: if Johnson submitted a budget below $100 billion, Byrd would release the tax bill. Johnson then personally bullied department heads to reduce their appropriations requests, and delivered a budget of $97.9 billion.
So he negotiated with a Senator of the opposite party, and then he told members of the Executive branch to reduce appropriations requests.

quote:
He kept up a steady stream of speeches and public appearances demanding Senate passage of the strong House bill, undiluted by horse-trading. And he personally lobbied senators to vote for cloture and end the filibuster.
LBJ's relationships in the Senate may have made some of this easier, but the real levers were getting public support, and getting the Executive branch to provide what Senators wanted.

So what about that do you think Sanders can't handle?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One more note - you say LBJ had no bully pulpit from which to rouse pressure. I do not think that means what you think it means.
[Smile]

Bully pulpit means the Presidency is a good place from which to be heard in order to convince people to agree with you. If they already agree, you don't need it, other than to ask them to act on their agreement.

You might say using the bully pulpit is "keeping up a steady stream of speeches and public appearances demanding" something.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
You might say using the bully pulpit is "keeping up a steady stream of speeches and public appearances demanding" something.

Something sorely lacking in recent Presidencies other than to call for 'patriotism' or to accept the government's actions.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think the legislative process works at all like it did during LBJ's time. Just take a look at the disorder in the House of Representatives for an example. Changes in earmarks, committee assignments, the rise of super pacs and other outside money make congress people less beholden to the parties and party leadership in general. I don't think anyone can work the levers of government in today's environment the way LBJ worked them in the 60's. So I agree I don't think Sanders can wheel and deal like LBJ but I don't think that type of leadership is even possible in today's environment so I don't see it as particularly relevant to Sander's qualifications for president.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your answer was "he worked the procedures and the phones". Working the procedures means knowing the rules of the Senate. Wikipedia has the rules of the Senate. Sanders is a Senator.
You don't think one President might be more effective doing that than another? Hitting a home run is just swinging a bat and hitting a ball out over the fence. Pretty simple.
quote:
LBJ worked tirelessly. In a nutshell, he found house members who were vulnerable to pressure, and applied pressure.
Exactly.
quote:
The pressure consisted of getting private citizens to pressure lawmakers.
They were private citizens, yes, but particular ones with influence, not a majority or plurality of voters.
quote:
LBJ's relationships in the Senate may have made some of this easier, but the real levers were getting public support, and getting the Executive branch to provide what Senators wanted.
No, that's not what your sources say happened. I think that support my argument, instead.
quote:
Bully pulpit means the Presidency is a good place from which to be heard in order to convince people to agree with you. If they already agree, you don't need it, other than to ask them to act on their agreement.

You might say using the bully pulpit is "keeping up a steady stream of speeches and public appearances demanding" something.

Your definition is no different from mine. I would say that the bully pulpit is using the privileged podium of the Presidency to rouse public support. Other than the speech to Congress, which was more putting Congress on notice, I don't think he did much of that.
quote:
Something sorely lacking in recent Presidencies other than to call for 'patriotism' or to accept the government's actions.
True for Bush, but not for Obama. Presidents do occupy the seat of American power, so most anything they say to the citizenry about the country's role in the world could be seen as an appeal to patriotism, but I don't think Obama leans that way. I don't recall him making that sort of appeal directly, but he has often explained his position in terms of American principles. Not quite the same thing.
quote:
I don't think the legislative process works at all like it did during LBJ's time. Just take a look at the disorder in the House of Representatives for an example. Changes in earmarks, committee assignments, the rise of super pacs and other outside money make congress people less beholden to the parties and party leadership in general. I don't think anyone can work the levers of government in today's environment the way LBJ worked them in the 60's. So I agree I don't think Sanders can wheel and deal like LBJ but I don't think that type of leadership is even possible in today's environment so I don't see it as particularly relevant to Sander's qualifications for president.
The politics is different, certainly. We may never again in our lifetimes see the Speaker of the House of one Party sit down for a game of poker, cigars and good whiskey on a Friday night with the President of the other Party. They still have to work together to get things done, however they can manage the feat.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

Your original point was that Sanders' weak legislative history was a liability.

I asked what strong legislative skills LBJ had that Sanders does not, that helped him as President.

When I did not get an answer, I provided evidence that LBJ had skills, but they had nothing to do with legislation. They were primarily garnering public support and providing favors to legislators.

You disagreed.

You said
quote:
"Other than the speech to Congress, which was more putting Congress on notice, I don't think he did much of that. [rousing public support]"
The article I quoted said
quote:
"He kept up a steady stream of speeches and public appearances " regarding the Civil Rights Act.
With all due respect, you don't think he did much of that, but the source said he did a "steady stream" of just that.

For my points about procedure (my bad, it is a discharge petition, a House rule, used over 500 times between 1931 and 2003) and asking influential private citizens to change public opinion, your comments do not support your thesis that LBJ used legislative skills. Also, the fact that Sanders advocates regular people exerting pressure does not mean he would exclude all other methods.

So if you don't mind, I would be very eager to hear specifically what legislative skills LBJ had, that Sanders does not, that helped the Civil Rights Act to pass. Feel free to define "legislative skills" however you like, but please make that definition clear.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro, with all due respect you are seeing the trees and not the forest.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been trying to figure out why we're talking past each other. I think it is that we do mean different things by "legislative skills". Both men, and virtually all other Senators, understand the steps that legislation follows in that body between making a proposal and having it enacted. So in that sense Bernie does know as much about it as Johnson did.

But back to my analogy about hitting home runs, Johnson was a recognized master at getting things from that A to that B. I've read and listened to numerous historical reports today about how the CRA traversed the path between those points. Many of the commentators assessed that very few men of his time could have accomplished getting the law passed due to public indifference and/or opposition and the abject resistance within the House and Senate. But he did. Many of those historians go further and say that his abilities to manage and effect favorable outcomes in Congress from his seat in the WH aren't matched by any men (or women) who have followed. One goes so far as to say that Johnson was one of the top 3 or 4 Presidents in all of US history in those abilities.

Let this be my last word in this back and forth. If you want to raise Bernie's stature to the level of Johnson's you'll have to bring more convincing arguments. It won't help to try to lower Johnson's, since history has given him a very high estimation that will not change no matter how much time passes.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should a senator be compared to a President in terms of what steps he'll take to get a bill passed? A senator can speak to the other senators, speak to his constituents, and pull weight with lobbyists. If he has inroads with people on committees maybe he can do something with that. But a senator isn't a party whip, and certainly doesn't have the same task or responsibility a President does to people of the U.S. A state senator represents his state, not anyone else.

As with velcro, I really have no idea which "legislative skills" you mean.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

Let me try one more time.

I will summarize what we agree on:

Johnson demonstrated tremendous skills as President to get the CRA passed.

Johnson also demonstrated tremendous skills as a legislator to get other bills passed.

Sanders heretofore has not demonstrated tremendous skills as a legislator to get bills passed. This could be because his situation and principles are such that he has not had the same opportunities. Or it could be he does not possess those skills, or chooses not to use them. As I said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But for sake of argument, I will stipulate that Sanders does not have the legislative skills of LBJ, whatever that means.

Here is where I think we disagree:

I do not feel that there is significant overlap of what LBJ did as President, and what he did as Senator. The levers and wedges are very different for the two positions, since they are entirely different branches of government. I thought I showed that with my quotations from sources.

If you want to convince me that LBJ used skills as President that Sanders has not demonstrated, you will need to provide specifics.
quote:
Many of those historians go further and say that his abilities to manage and effect favorable outcomes in Congress from his seat in the WH aren't matched by any men (or women) who have followed. One goes so far as to say that Johnson was one of the top 3 or 4 Presidents in all of US history in those abilities.
Please note that even this quote refers to his "abilities to manage and effect favorable outcomes in Congress from his seat in the WH ", and do not refer to his time in Congress itself.

If those abilities include speaking with a Texas accent, or reaching objects off of tall shelves, then no, Sanders can not match that skill. If the abilities include working with people across the aisle, speaking honestly, being trusted by all, and having strong public support, then Sanders may be able to match those skills.

If you don't specify, we can't have a meaningful discussion.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

I apologize if I have a confrontational tone. Leadership qualities can be kind of, well, qualitative, and not easily specified. So we can just agree to disagree.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're not being confrontational. I understand that we're not reading each other the way we wish we would be read. You highlighted what you believe is the difference between Johnson's Presidential and Senatorial roles. I'm saying that they're really not that different. As a majority leader Johnson had to rally votes and persuade other members to toe the Party or policy line.

He did the same thing from a slight remove as President. He got Dirksen, the minority Party leader of the Republicans who was personally opposed to the CRA, to go along and even lobby for votes within his own caucus. That was *exactly* what he did as a Senator himself. It was a sustained virtuoso exercise that raised both of their statures in the annals of the Congressional legislative process.

You're looking too close to put a hard line between his roles in the legislation from two positions. It looks like you tend to agree that Bernie has never demonstrated that kind of leadership in the House or Senate to pass legislation that he was as passionate about. I wouldn't expect him to be able to do it as President, therefore.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, all you're doing is demonstrating that the LBJ analogy is not applicable. Sanders isn't a majority leader and therefore cannot whip votes in that way. In fact he's the junior senator from Vermont, which only goes to show how well the Vermonters think he and Leahy are doing. Sanders' job isn't to lead the senate, it's to represent his people, and they seem to think he's doing a stellar job.

You can look at LBJ and say you feel he was more a 'leader of the senate' than Sanders is, and that's fine, but why is being the leader of a group of legislators the job qualification? Was Lincoln unqualified for the job, then? Should some senate majority leader have had the job instead, or a party whip? Your argument seems founded on the premise that a President ought to be someone who's been enmeshed for years in being a mover and shaker in politics, and personally I think this is roughly opposite of what's best. The Present (and even the representatives) were never supposed to be career politicians (there wasn't ideally supposed to even be such a thing), they were supposed to be educated people with a brain. Now, Sanders is definitely a career politician, but disqualifying people because they aren't enough of a politician seems crazy to me.

If anything the one area where I could see the President as requiring some special expertise might be as Commander in Chief, and as such I can see the appeal of voting a war veteran or General into office like people used to do. Apparently that's out of favor, and if a civilian with no military experience can be commander in chief then I don't see how such a person can't run the executive also. The President isn't supposed to be an autocrat whose political prowess bullies the Congress into acting out his will, so I see that angle as being moot.

[ November 29, 2015, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know if Sanders can wheel and deal to get things done, but I do know that Hillary will get zero done if it is not over the Republicans' cold dead bodies. Now maybe you think that Hillary is going to be most adept at burying her opposition (politically that is) so they are swept aside, crushed, leaving things open for her to enact her agenda.

But if I may make an observation: when I hear about complaints from regular people, it's typically about a lack of bipartisanship, a lack of cooperation. They're not calling on politicians to crush the opposition - they're calling on them to work with the opposition.

Getting back to Sanders, I see his effectiveness as an unknown quantity. With Hillary, there is nothing unknown - she is the status quo, war without end, politics to the death. She is precisely the status quo that people have so bitterly complained about. Oh wait, except she's a woman. Great. Is that like how having a black president was supposed to change things?

For what it's worth, I am politically opposite to Sanders on most issues, but of the candidates I have seen thus far, he is the only one that at least doesn't offend me on some level.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I don't know if Sanders can wheel and deal to get things done, but I do know that Hillary will get zero done if it is not over the Republicans' cold dead bodies. Now maybe you think that Hillary is going to be most adept at burying her opposition (politically that is) so they are swept aside, crushed, leaving things open for her to enact her agenda.

But if I may make an observation: when I hear about complaints from regular people, it's typically about a lack of bipartisanship, a lack of cooperation. They're not calling on politicians to crush the opposition - they're calling on them to work with the opposition.

Getting back to Sanders, I see his effectiveness as an unknown quantity. With Hillary, there is nothing unknown - she is the status quo, war without end, politics to the death. She is precisely the status quo that people have so bitterly complained about. Oh wait, except she's a woman. Great. Is that like how having a black president was supposed to change things?

For what it's worth, I am politically opposite to Sanders on most issues, but of the candidates I have seen thus far, he is the only one that at least doesn't offend me on some level.

Why limit the statement to political burial? I am unaware of any other candidate that has had more rivals die in suspicious circumstances. The Clintons certainly have a homicidal blue fairy godmother.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

Not to beat a dead horse, but you say LBJ "got Dirksen, the minority Party leader of the Republicans who was personally opposed to the CRA, to go along and even lobby for votes within his own caucus. "

How? He had to promise Dirksen something, or threaten to do something Dirksen did not want. If it is not one of those two options, please enlighten me.

Did he promise/threaten to do things Senators can do? Or did he promise/threaten to do things Presidents can do? Or was it both? If so, what exactly was it? If you can't say exactly what it was, then I think your point is unproven.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I could make an argument that the best possible president is one who can't get legislation passed... you're likely to agree if you think of one of the following:

Bush gets Congressional authorization for the Patriot Act and the Iraq invasion.

Obama gets Obamacare passed.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Check the Rolling Stone interview, Dec 3, 2015, page 56+

"A political system which is now corrupt and leading us toward oligarchy" p56

"Fraud is a business model ...Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress." p59

"IF A BANK IS TOO BIG TO FAIL ... [it is] TOO BIG TO EXIST" p60

[ December 08, 2015, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1