Your Candidate's Achievements

[Epee_Pox]

Tell us what your favorite presidential or vice-presidential candidate has ACHIEVED.

Do not tell us what they TRIED to do. Do not tell us what they WORKED on. Do not tell us what they led, supervised, directed or participated in. And don't talk about the other candidates.

Only tell us the end results that your candidate has actually ACCOMPLISHED.

Thank you.

[Inquartata]

That's not how we elect our leaders, though. By and large we choose whoever is not the other party's choice...it's a popularity contest and little more. Achievements convince no one.

[keith]

I hear Jimmy Carter was a pretty good governor.

[Epee_Pox]

That's not how we elect our leaders, though. By and large we choose whoever is not the other party's choice...it's a popularity contest and little more. Achievements convince no one.

I'm not hosting an election, however. Nor am I asking for all the reasons to vote for one person, or not to vote for another.

I am merely seeking information about specific accomplishments of the people now running.

[keith]

I am merely seeking information about specific accomplishments of the people now running.

google?

[Epee_Pox]

Sorry, want to hear what people here think their candidates' accomplishments are.

Haven't seen any yet.

[keith]

Sorry, want to hear what people here think their candidates' accomplishments are.

Haven't seen any yet.

Historical performance should not be used to assume future results?

Seriously.

None of the candidates have held the job they want. Given that they are pretty unique jobs whose key skills can change, quite literally in heart beat, there really aren't any good indicators - as history shows.

Perhaps you meant to ask what makes you think your candidate will make a decent fist of it? Of course that is obviously, rather than subtly, subjective .

[Inquartata]

Don't you just hate people who won't give a question a straight answer?

But then, we ARE talking politics. Just following the folkways of that particular society.

[Epee_Pox]

Not asking if anyone is qualified to be president, only asking what they've achieved thus far. Not a hard question.

[lindajdunn]

I will respond by noting that both candidates have proven their ability and willingness to sacrifice their personal lives for the benefit of others.

McCain, as a POW, could have returned earlier but refused to be released unless others were released first.

Barack left being a community oganizer to go to Harvard, graduated near the top of his class and did sufficiently well that he could have taken a high paying jig, paid off the student loans in 6 months or so, and started earning really big money. Instead, he returned to Chicago and community service.

Both are doing better financially than most Americans. McCain married well. So did Barack, but differently. Cindy was independently wealthy when McCain married her. Barack married one damn smart and attractive woman and together they're worth considerably less than the McCain's 8 houses but they're still better off than most voters.

[Epee_Pox]

As nobody here appears to be aware of any accomplishments, I'll post some instead. Today's installation is Barack Obama.

Again, things "worked for" or "fought for" or otherwise not actually seen through to a successful completion do not count.

1983 . Graduates from Columbia University

1988 . Accepted to Harvard Law School

1990 . Chosen as president of the Harvard Law Review (albeit during the time when it was widely disparaged for frittering away its authority, instead becoming a laughingstock, because it had abandoned jurisprudential rigor for PC silliness, and had adopted a race-based rather than merit-based selection process for its editors, and so many in the law actually hold this against Obama, believe it or not)

1991 . Graduates from law school, hired by a law firm in Chicago that assisted with civil rights legislation

1992 . Hired by the University of Chicago as an adjunct professor (a non-tenure-track position for working lawyers, as opposed to academics, but not an easy job to get)

1996 . Elected (albeit unopposed) to the Illinois State Senate, representing the university neighborhood of Hyde Park. Serves for 8 years.

1998 . Law he sponsored/co-sponsored signed into law, barring political fundraising on state property, and barring lobbyist gifts to state legislators

2003 . Law he sponsored/co-sponsored signed into law, requiring police to videotape interrogations of murder suspects

2004 . Elected (albeit unopposed) to the U.S. Senate for Illinois. Serves for 2 years before launching a full-time presidential campaign

2005 . Law he sponsored/co-sponsored signed into law, increasing U.S. aid to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has been a failed state since about 1960

2007 . Law he sponsored/co-sponsored signed into law, expanding U.S. cooperation with international efforts to locate and destroy shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles still unaccounted-for from the former Soviet Union.

2008 . Wins nomination as the Democratic candidate for President of the U.S.

[lindajdunn]

Notes on Obama:

For six years, Obama served in a Republican-controlled Senate, so he and fellow Democrats only got a fraction of their bills signed into law. Note that when one is considering accomplishments, one also needs to consider what one was working with. If you go in with a majority party, you are usually going to accomplish more than if you're in the minority.

During his last two years, Democrats controlled the chamber.

He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy.

Helped pass a 5 percent earned-income tax credit for low-income working families in 2000; made the credit permanent in 2003.

Successfully sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide. (2004)

Successfully co-sponsored a prescription drug discount buying club program for seniors and the disabled. (2003)

Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)

Helped pass an overhaul of the state's troubled death penalty system. (2003)

Unsuccessfully co-sponsored ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure became law after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. (2003)

Successfully sponsored move to shield Illinois workers from federal rules that threatened overtime pay for some employees.

Successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform called the Gift Ban Act. (1998)

[mrbiggs]

Obama became the first black presidential candidate in the history of the United States.



I'm sold.

[KidLazy]

I know Obama was at a fencing tournament (not fencing), not a major one, but a small local Div2/3 qualifier.
Does this count? It would be awesome if he fences.

[Beeblebrox]

I know Obama was at a fencing tournament (not fencing), not a major one, but a small local Div2/3 qualifier.
Does this count? It would be awesome if he fences.

Based on his qualifications for POTUS, that is all that would be needed for him to qualify to represent the US at the 1012 Olympic games in London in all three weapons.

[lindajdunn]

Based on his qualifications for POTUS, that is all that would be needed for him to qualify to represent the US at the 1012 Olympic games in London in all three weapons.

Whereas McCain can stand on the strip for each pool bout and DE in veteran fencing, and parry each attack with a single word: POW.

There's no defense against it.

[dcmdale]

Successfully co-sponsored a prescription drug discount buying club program for seniors and the disabled. (2003)

Just to note: "sponsorship" and "co-sponsorship" don't necessarily mean much in Congress. Bills can have many sponsors. It should not be confused with authorship.

[Epee_Pox]

Just to note: "sponsorship" and "co-sponsorship" don't necessarily mean much in Congress. Bills can have many sponsors. It should not be confused with authorship.

True, but when there are only two co-sponsors it does mean more than a bill watered down by many. The co-sponsors have an obligation to get off their butt, get their staffs off their butts, and do the legwork and glad-handing necessary to get the bill through committee and through the byzantine procedures required for getting a final version presented to the President for signature.

Okay, who wants to do McCain's list, or shall I?

[dcmdale]

True, but when there are only two co-sponsors it does mean more than a bill watered down by many. The co-sponsors have an obligation to get off their butt, get their staffs off their butts, and do the legwork and glad-handing necessary to get the bill through committee and through the byzantine procedures required for getting a final version presented to the President for signature.

Not disagreeing with any of this.

"Sponsoring" bills is a very common way for politicians to pad their accomplishments to the voters. This is particularly true where there are dozens of sponsors. In the House, they have imposed a limit of 15 (I think) sponsors / bill, so Congressmen are introducing duplicate bills to allow more sponsors.

Sponsorship does involve some responsibilities. If a bill has only 1 sponsor, or a few sponsors, then, yes, getting it passed says that you have done work. Where there are many, it is little more than a "me too."

I have not done the legwork on Linda's list to see which is the case here with respect to each sponsorship. It is entirely possible that some of them are significant accomplishments. What I am saying, though, is listing a bunch of sponsorships by itself says something about the positions of the Senator, but not so much about accomplishments. That is true of candidates from both parties.

I am also not saying that if all Obama has is a bunch of me-too sponsorships that he has been a bad Senator. That would be entirely normal for a freshman Senator. You will recall that the Democrats made a big deal about it when Clinton (with a little bit of help) got something passed as the lead sponsor during her freshman term. The skill of being able to glad-hand things through tends to go with seniority and access.

When Biden said last December that Obama had never gotten any bill that he had sponsored passed into law, obviously he was technically wrong as Linda pointed out, but well could be reflective of the limitation of what Obama was able to do while a freshman Senator. If I were to look at McCain's freshman accomplishments (I haven't), I would expect something similar.

Obviously, Obama's most startling accomplishment has been to put together an incredibly well organized and savvy national campaign. That is not something you expect of a freshman Senator.

Now, concentrating on his legislative accomplishments in the Senate may be a little bit of a red herring. It is hard to get stuff done as a freshman Senator. As President, he would be in a much different position to make things happen.

What I *do* care about from his time in the Senate is whether it has sufficiently informed him about the complexity and interrelatedness of being an actual decision-maker rather than a one-of-a-100 advocate. (Note: I do not consider the legislative branch good at this at all, but since both candidates are afflicted by the same ill, it is a push). As an advocate, you can say all kinds of things and your more ill-advised views will be countered by the system. As a decision maker, you are responsible for the results and your decisions can reverberate for decades beyond your own term. Carter's policies with respect to Iran come immediately to mind. I think that Obama would have undoubtedly benefited from 4 or 8 more years in the Senate, or even better, with some time in the executive branch, but he has put himself forward now, so that is how we have to take him.

McCain's accomplishments, to me at least, are not so impressive in volume as in what they say about his ability to forge compromises and draw together moderate thinking and action in an exceptionally polarized environment.

For all the talk about "Change" and "Hope" on both sides, this is shaping up as one of the most negative, old-school, brass-knuckle, innuendo-driven, mud-slinging elections in recent history. Neither side has a monopoly on faults, but both seem to have chosen to focus more on why the other side is a bad choice than why they are a good choice. YMMV.

[Philistine]

{snip}(albeit during the time when it was widely disparaged for frittering away its authority, instead becoming a laughingstock, because it had abandoned jurisprudential rigor for PC silliness, and had adopted a race-based rather than merit-based selection process for its editors, and so many in the law actually hold this against Obama, believe it or not)
{snip}

What is your basis for this belief?

I haven't ever seen this expressed, in either legal circles or non-legal ones for that matter. (Not that that means it's not true--Just wondering what the basis for the statement was).

--Philistine