Anyone know of year by year or session by session stats on bills that actually became laws? That thomas site is not user-friendly in any way, shape, or form.

According to this, in 1997 and 1998 (105th congress), of the 13,882 pieces of legislation, only 354 of the bills actually became a law, so, that’s 0.66 per member of Congress (354/535) per 2 year session. So, 10 sessions * 0.6 = 6.6 laws. He passed 11 according to the site…if you want to use 7, that’s still batting average in my eyes. Where are the numbers on other senators?

As for the count of 2000, I simply went to http://www.senate.gov and noticed that the highest numbered senate bill that is currently active is S.2769 (that’s the highest I saw anyway). The count resets with each congressional session, so that means that 2769 bills have been written and introduced for this sesion.

peter,
You’re correct, in that there are different types of experience, and that Senators may have more experience in certain areas, but experience isn’t the factor I’ve been discussing. It’s leadership. Experience is also a big factor, but demonstrable leadership trumps non-demonstrable leadership every single time.

As for Governors vs. Senators: a governor is unlikely to have much exposure to foreign policy, military affairs, the federal budget, or any of the many other national issues which Senators work with on a daily basis. A governor’s time is largely spent with issues which are more local in nature (education, bond issues, state criminal and civil law, etc.) There are advantages of either type of experience, but I don’t see why one should trump the other.

I would argue that predicting the likely effectiveness of a given candidate is most accurately accomplished by examining their experience and work credentials. Experience that is similar to the duties required of POTUS will carry more weight than experience that does not. Experience as governor of a State, or as CEO of a corporation, or head of a large government agency are an excellent indicator of the likely success as POTUS. Congressional duties and responsibilities are quite dissimilar from those required of POTUS, so experience in that capacity is less valuable as a predictor of future success.

Which, I think, is why former governors have been more frequently selected over former congressmen for POTUS. At least in the past 30 years.

Of course, none of this is a guarantee of success.

Where did you get your stats? I think you are incorrect. I see the argument that Kerry’s sponsoring of bills is only because he was criticized. Ok, let’s look at the 101st congress (‘89/’90). Kerry sponsored 79 bills/resolutions/joint resolutions. McCain sponsored 63. Conrad Burns 32. Kennedy 192. Dole 180. There is a wide range. I mean, you say 2000 have been introduced in this session and then do all the “simple math” to prove he was not only mediocre, but “uniquely unqualified”. Does this 2000 number include “resolutions and joint resolutions and the like”? I would assume so and if so then why are kos’ numbers not adequate for your viewing pleasure? If not, then, ok, where did you get your numbers?

Mark, like you I find it interesting. But as pointed out by someone above, perhaps the rage is really over what a disappointment Dubya turned out to be. Using the immigration issue to beat him over the head for wimping out and not pushing harder on privatising SS, abolishing Dept of Ed, for waffling on some judges, for not vetoing a single damn bill . . .. Afterall, this is pretty much the last chance to “punish” him for caving in on the very things we put him in place for.

Reaganesque? Certainly not.

In the 2k election I abstained from voting cause I thot he’d be a chip off the old block. Altho the debates changed my mind, I felt he would win anyway, and I’d nonetheless withhold my vote just the same.

I was moved to vote for Dubya in ‘04 for 2 primary reasons — hold the course on WOT, and anybody but incompetent sKerry — come to think of it, anybody but the “9 Dwarves”. Can you believe I thot seriously about Dean until he wigged out? Nonetheless, I was po’d that Bush didn’t push hard enough on the aforementioned issues.

I also didn’t vote in ‘96 because Dole left me cold, even tho I respected his service and Perot was in full tin-foil mode — Clintons? give me a break. In ‘92, I went with Perot for the shock/protest, better that than Daddy Bush or a pair of Clintons.

With talk of boycotting this and ‘08. I say take heart in what’s happening in PA & MN. The way to win this is vote the incumbents out and replace with conservatives who share my fiscal & social views.

As for the actual issue of immigration, whatever the people want. I can see both sides of the issue. But which ever way we go, it needs to be fair for any and all immigrants, not just Mexicans. If we’re going to give Mexicans a break, then give the Romanians, Chinese, Cubans a break as well. All the same, the in-your-face attitude of the illegals makes my blood boil. If you want US citizenship, speak/learn English and be assimilated.

We need to lean on the corrupt governments to our South to straighten their act. I’d also see no problem annexing the whole lot of them and becoming 60 or 75 States. hehehe

BTW, 8 weeks and counting till I get back home from this God-forsaken Babylonia. Yippe-kai-yeah

Not to go in circles, but (as noted above) there are many criteria for the Presidency besides executive experience on your resume. Getting elected to the Senate is one example of leadership: you have to manage a campaign organization and get elected. I would far rather have a President who is right on the issues and light on executive experience than the other way around.