Rubes

Obama, Lunchbox Brandon, Nancy ice cream Pelosi.. ever held a real job in their entire life.

Not sure what a ‘real job’ is in your mind. Obama practiced law for about three years. For about two years, he worked for a commercial company which produced corporate newsletters under contract. Presumably,he had the usual part time and seasonal work as a student. Pelosi married young and had five children; I think she was a schoolteacher for about a year. Biden was an associate in a suburban law firm for about four years and would have had the usual part time and seasonal work before that. His father was a car dealer and may have worked for him.

The thing is, what you’re referring to is a chronic problem in Congress and among its top echelon in particular. All of them have been drawing salaries and fees from elected office, patronage positions, and positions in political organizations almost since they completed their schooling. Steny Hoyer has been in elective office without interruption since 1962 and hasn’t practiced law in at least 40 years (longer, I think). James Clyburn has been in political patronage jobs since 1971 and was a schoolteacher for a half-dozen years before that. Kevin McCarthy has been on the payroll of legislatures (as an aide or a member) since he was 22 years old. Bitc* McConnell was in private practice for about five years and never offered a partnership. UpChuck Schumer never practiced law and has held elective office since he was 25 years old. Richard Durbin hasn’t practiced law since he was elected to Congress 1982 and for 13 years prior he had public sector salaries and fee income; from the time he was admitted to the bar, he has had politically determed income. John Thune has had political staff jobs or elective positions since he was 24 years old. Steve Scalise’s capsule biographies do not indicate how he earned a living prior to age 31.

You look at their predecessors and you see the same thing. Paul Ryan before he was elected to Congress was employed by one of the ancestors of FreedomWorks (Ryan is odd in that he has the skills to land a job as a fitness instructor, but he’s never worked in that trade). John Cornyn was in private practice for about seven years, then a government lawyer after that. Trent Lott was on the payroll of the United States Congress from the time he finished his law degree to the time he retired (after which he went into the lobbying business). Harry Reid practiced law for about nine years; he was astonishingly wealthy for a man who was a solo practitioner in a 3d tier city, followed by 30+ years of government salaries. Thomas Daschle was elected to Congress after a run of years as a congressional aide. He was on the congressional payroll for 30 years until the voters of South Dakota unexpectedly threw him out of office at the age of 57. Bob Dole was an interesting person with a challenging early life, but he was in political jobs from the age of 29 to the age of 73; the closest he got to practicing law was a stint as an elected corporation counsel in a county with 12,000 residents. Robert Michel was on the payroll of the US Congress from the time he’d used up his GI Bill benefits at age 26 to the time he retired at age 71.

A step up from these guys would be Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert, who were both teachers (at government schools). John Kyl practiced law for about 20 years, (at a firm in the state capitol with a ‘government relations’ practice). Richard Gephardt, George Mitchell, and Howard Baker practiced law (for periods ranging from 10 years to 17 years).

Bill Frist was a surgeon for about 15 and John Boehner ran a small business for about 14 years.

However, there is one “little guy,”Eric Swalwell, who somehow has a negative net worth, even after grifting hundreds of thousands through Chinese gov student front groups for his campaigns, and after his dalliance with PROC spy “White Fang.” (apologies to Soupy Sales). I thought he could have grifted more out of them both. But apparently he’s too dumb to get 10% for the Big Guy.

Darrell Issa used to make his money the old-fashioned way: car theft.

I personally don’t care if a politician has spent most of his life in government. I want to see a decent amount of experience in a presidential candidate, for example. As long at he doesn’t lose his perspective. I think it’s a percentage game. There should be a good balance of expertise and innovation, naivete and jadedness.

Darrell Issa used to make his money the old-fashioned way: car theft.

[eyeroll]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/not-so-grand-behind-rep-darrell-issas-three-auto-theft-accusations/

I personally don’t care if a politician has spent most of his life in government. I want to see a decent amount of experience in a presidential candidate, for example.

‘Experience’ at what?

Additionally, service in the House counts at half the rate (eg 8 years House = 4 years Senate).

Arbitrary.

Eight years cumulative as a senator, cabinet member, or governor. Four of those years may be substituted with senior military or private sector experience.

The only people who work for Senators are staff whose job is serving the Senator. The position of Senator is not a substitute for state governor or cabinet secretary.

And note that among our more capable presidents were Harry Truman (once a county executive) and Dwight Eisenhower (flag rank military with a detour through higher ed); Eisenhower never had held any kind of elected office.

Sure it’s arbitrary. And I hope I would have been able to recognize the value of a Lincoln if I were voting then. But I look at the presidents in my lifetime and I think we’re underestimating the importance of experience. We’re coming off a 20 year stretch of presidents who wouldn’t meet these qualifications, and I think that weakness showed in their administrations.

What’s arbitrary is the distinction you drew between time in the House and time in the Senate. What differentiates the two bodies is that House members tend to be more responsive to constituents while Senators tend to favor donors.

Actually, George W. Bush met your stated qualifications. So did Zhou Bai Den, which should give you pause. Trump’s main problem was not a deficit of experience, but of a quantum of scheming by segments of the permanent government not seen in north of 40 years if ever.

It’s harder to hide incompetence in the Senate. A senator is more likely to have developed some policy expertise.

‘Sez who? and sez who?

W only had 6 years as governor when he was elected.

You said, “Four of those years may be substituted with senior military or private sector experience. “. George W. Bush ran business concerns for 15 years.

Biden isn’t an incompetent because of his experience, exactly.

You said 8 years combined…etc. etc. listing ‘Senator’ as one of your preferred offices. Your original complaint concerned ‘experience’.

Note, your original criteria as stated would have excluded Eisenhower, Nixon, George Bush the Elder, and Donald Trump; your criteria as applied would exclude Jimmy Carter in addition to George Bush the Younger. Ronald Reagan only barely passes muster. OTOH, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson pass easily, as does Gerald Ford.

I wouldn’t consider Bush Jr. a successful top businessman.

His balance sheets and income statements were not on your stated criteria (I think the Texas Rangers were profitable when he was general managing partner).

As for Bush Sr. and Nixon, VP is generally considered cabinet-level.

By whom? It’s a fifth wheel ceremonial position. No one reports to the VP but his office staff. The solitary exception to date has been Nelson Rockefeller, to whom the Domestic Policy Staff at the White House was assigned (as well as a blue-ribbon commission).

What’s interesting about that is that there’s no obvious constitutional impediment to appointing the VP to run a cabinet department or a stand-alone federal agency. In that case, he might have actual work to do (as long as his name isn’t ‘Pete Buttigieg’) and his position as VP would be a matter of protocol.

I think Carter and Trump are both great examples of people who would have done a much better job if they’d had some DC experience. Include Obama and you’ve got the essence of my argument.

No, I don’t have the essence of your argument because it’s rather protean. The only thing Obama ever did which resembled an executive position was to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (which he ran into the ground). He sat in legislatures for a dozen years and never established himself as a maven in any area of policy. He was a working member of Congress for < three years. He was very unlike Carter or Trump.

Neither Bush the Younger nor Ronald Reagan had a history in Washington.

You might say Carter’s lack of a history in Washington was a problem, but that’s an anodyne way of putting it. Max Friedersdorf and Tip O’Neill and Daniel Patrick Moynihan all had occasion to remark on the degree to which Carter and his trusted staff had no conception of how Congress operated or what motivated its members.

As for Trump, saying his problem was ‘lack of experience in Washington’ is just silly. No president has had to suffer that level of sabotage by elements of the permanent government.

When I said “senior military or private sector”, I wasn’t thinking of paper routes and ball clubs.

He did not have a paper route. He ran two businesses, one of which had $130 million dollars in revenue the year he ran for president.

As for cabinet-level positions, it’s an official status these days

that’s of no interest. what’s of interest is what the vp does. The staff has gotten increasingly bloated, but is still only about 100, many of them domestic staff at the US Naval Observatory.

This is funny; it’s like I’m talking and you’re arguing.

No, what’s funny is that you have an inchoate idea and you refuse to repair it so it is not internally contradictory or at war with actual history. You could have done that and used fewer words than you have scampering from one ill considered position to another.

and can assure you that it’s not contradictory nor have I changed it in a scampering or non-scampering way during this thread.

Both are right north yonder in cold print.

I suspect a lot of this conversation is being driven by our differing assessments of Trump.

No, it’s being driven by your disinclination to be consistent and remember what you’ve said from one moment to the next.