He seems like a generally decent person, but I don’t understand where the excitement around him has come from. Hell, he was my representative for years, and I would struggle to recall much of anything that changed with him in office
Theres so few congresspeople that arent bought and paid for by AIPAC, so the field is pretty narrow. If we replace Schumer and Jeffries with clones of them, theres no point to any of this.
There’s only so much that one US Senator can do for their constituents. The state and local legislatures have a more immediate impact on the lives of the average resident.
In federal office, they have to work within the consensus of all their colleagues from other states. And without a federal trifecta, it’s difficult to push a bold agenda. Especially when we’re talking about progressive politicians, who have to work within a party that resists their policy proposals.
So I’m not sure how much you were expecting to tangibly change, or how much of that you can attribute to one Senator specifically.
But from my view, Van Hollen seems pretty genuine, he’s consistent on what he stands for, and he’s willing to help his constituents where he can. His heart is in the right place, and that puts him leagues ahead of most of his colleagues in my book. Even though he doesn’t do much pandering just to make a name for himself; which, again, I view as being to his merit.
His record as a senator isn’t as important (for the very valid reasons you mentioned), but he was both my representative in state senate and the House before being my senator. I lived in MD for a long time.
Not sure how much I agree when it comes to putting his name out there, though. Effective legislators ought to not only advocate for their constituents, but also make them aware of how they are fulfilling the mandate they’ve been given.
Ultimately though if my biggest criticism of the guy is “he’s not very good at advertising himself,” then I certainly can live with him as a potential majority leader. Absolutely beats Schumer, anyway. I mostly ask why people like him because it’s bizarre seeing a (formerly) local politician’s name thrown around seemingly out of nowhere
I don’t personally consider self-promotion to be a requirement for effective congressional leadership. He doesn’t make headlines often, but when he does it’s usually because he’s standing up for something important.
I know there have already been some senators-elect who have mentioned him as a potential replacement for Schumer though. El-Sayed even said it.
But if you have anyone else you think would be better for the role, I’d be glad to hear your suggestions too
How so?
He seems like a generally decent person, but I don’t understand where the excitement around him has come from. Hell, he was my representative for years, and I would struggle to recall much of anything that changed with him in office
Theres so few congresspeople that arent bought and paid for by AIPAC, so the field is pretty narrow. If we replace Schumer and Jeffries with clones of them, theres no point to any of this.
that sound like a good thing from a senator, he’s not like Cruz, who is memorable for all the wrong reasons.
There’s only so much that one US Senator can do for their constituents. The state and local legislatures have a more immediate impact on the lives of the average resident.
In federal office, they have to work within the consensus of all their colleagues from other states. And without a federal trifecta, it’s difficult to push a bold agenda. Especially when we’re talking about progressive politicians, who have to work within a party that resists their policy proposals.
So I’m not sure how much you were expecting to tangibly change, or how much of that you can attribute to one Senator specifically.
But from my view, Van Hollen seems pretty genuine, he’s consistent on what he stands for, and he’s willing to help his constituents where he can. His heart is in the right place, and that puts him leagues ahead of most of his colleagues in my book. Even though he doesn’t do much pandering just to make a name for himself; which, again, I view as being to his merit.
His record as a senator isn’t as important (for the very valid reasons you mentioned), but he was both my representative in state senate and the House before being my senator. I lived in MD for a long time.
Not sure how much I agree when it comes to putting his name out there, though. Effective legislators ought to not only advocate for their constituents, but also make them aware of how they are fulfilling the mandate they’ve been given.
Ultimately though if my biggest criticism of the guy is “he’s not very good at advertising himself,” then I certainly can live with him as a potential majority leader. Absolutely beats Schumer, anyway. I mostly ask why people like him because it’s bizarre seeing a (formerly) local politician’s name thrown around seemingly out of nowhere
I don’t personally consider self-promotion to be a requirement for effective congressional leadership. He doesn’t make headlines often, but when he does it’s usually because he’s standing up for something important.
I know there have already been some senators-elect who have mentioned him as a potential replacement for Schumer though. El-Sayed even said it.
But if you have anyone else you think would be better for the role, I’d be glad to hear your suggestions too