Planted questions for Hillary

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are apparently measuring success of a president as their popularity. That typically isn't a very good standard (again, ask Lincoln).

You are also dodging the question. Do you rank the 4 governors in the top 4 of best presidents since FDR?

And I am not using Wikipedia as a source of anything. I am using them as a convenient link to show you a copy of scholarly studies done on presidential rankings (reprinted in Wikipedia).

My ranking:

Reagan first by a long shot.

Eisenhower second, but he received executive training through his political positions in the military. And I agree a mayor of NYC is a major executive. Perhaps one of LA or Chicago also qualifies.

Maybe, not in terms of economic fairness or anything, but maybe Clinton third.

FDR perhaps fourth.

The rest don't deserve to be ranked and the rest were incompetent.

Kennedy, LBJ and Bush 1 had some successes, but some major failures.

Nixon had external successes but so many domestic failures. Ford did what he had to get by but really lacked vision.

Bush II is a PR disaster and Carter should be considered the worst of all time.

Executive experience will not guarantee success but a lack thereof will guarantee disparate quality in results and leadership.

Executive experience must teach one how to make appointments, how to deal with elected, appointed and career bureaucrats, how to balance PR with the competing interests of many sides. I do not believe a Senator or Rep faces that. So without that test, it's too big a risk to appoint our most difficult position to a mere Senator or Representative.

So my question for you, what substitute executive experience does Hillary or Obama possess?

No military, no position as Vice President. None. Absolutely none.

You're willing to take a big risk, just because they vote the way you like. If a Republican with so little on the resume were running, we'd hear it.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're willing to take a big risk, just because they vote the way you like. If a Republican with so little on the resume were running, we'd hear it.

Exactly. Cali is as big a partisan hack as he constantly accuses Snipe of being.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My ranking:

Reagan first by a long shot.

Eisenhower second, but he received executive training through his political positions in the military. And I agree a mayor of NYC is a major executive. Perhaps one of LA or Chicago also qualifies.

Maybe, not in terms of economic fairness or anything, but maybe Clinton third.

FDR perhaps fourth.

The rest don't deserve to be ranked and the rest were incompetent.

Kennedy, LBJ and Bush 1 had some successes, but some major failures.

Nixon had external successes but so many domestic failures. Ford did what he had to get by but really lacked vision.

Bush II is a PR disaster and Carter should be considered the worst of all time.

Executive experience will not guarantee success but a lack thereof will guarantee disparate quality in results and leadership.

Executive experience must teach one how to make appointments, how to deal with elected, appointed and career bureaucrats, how to balance PR with the competing interests of many sides. I do not believe a Senator or Rep faces that. So without that test, it's too big a risk to appoint our most difficult position to a mere Senator or Representative.

So my question for you, what substitute executive experience does Hillary or Obama possess?

No military, no position as Vice President. None. Absolutely none.

You're willing to take a big risk, just because they vote the way you like. If a Republican with so little on the resume were running, we'd hear it.

What do you mean "if" a Republican were running with limited executive experience? Giuliani has served as a mayor of a large city. Is that greater than serving as a US Senator or being First Lady?

Fred Thompson was a US Senator.

Duncan Hunter- US Rep.

Alan Keyes- no executive experience

John McCain- Senator

Ron Paul- US Rep.

Tancredo- US Rep.

So go ahead and show me where you "heard about it" from me. Huckabee and Romney are the only 2 who have served as governors (neither from one of the major states you said they should serve from to be successful).

Your quote of "a lack [of executive experience] will guarantee disparate quality in results and leadership" is just not supported by the evidence.

Again, I think you are just wanting to see what you have become familiar with seeing since Reagan- a president with gubernatorial experience. Unfortunately, we haven't had many good presidents in that time frame.

I will give Tex credit for one thing- at least he was wise enough to drop out when he saw he had a losing argument.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Exactly. Cali is as big a partisan hack as he constantly accuses Snipe of being.

I wouldn't go that far. I imagine I could nominate Attila the Hun as President for Reps and Snipe would vote for him.

Cali only desires like-mindedness and is not so party loyal as he is for oppressive economic policies loyal. If a person espouses active socialism with progressive taxation, that's his baby.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What do you mean "if" a Republican were running with limited executive experience? Giuliani has served as a mayor of a large city. Is that greater than serving as a US Senator or being First Lady?

Fred Thompson was a US Senator.

Duncan Hunter- US Rep.

Alan Keyes- no executive experience

John McCain- Senator

Ron Paul- US Rep.

Tancredo- US Rep.

So go ahead and show me where you "heard about it" from me. Huckabee and Romney are the only 2 who have served as governors (neither from one of the major states you said they should serve from to be successful).

Your quote of "a lack [of executive experience] will guarantee disparate quality in results and leadership" is just not supported by the evidence.

Again, I think you are just wanting to see what you have become familiar with seeing since Reagan- a president with gubernatorial experience. Unfortunately, we haven't had many good presidents in that time frame.

I will give Tex credit for one thing- at least he was wise enough to drop out when he saw he had a losing argument.

Giuliani has the substitute for gubernatorial experience, as a mayor of almost 10 million persons. That's larger than most states.

First Lady is an executive? Since when? I would have termed her as First Bitch, but that's another thing.

First Lady is a nothing position with no power, thank goodness, and of no benefit to the Republic.

Executive experience is essential as we go forward. And I must add they should be successful at it. Bush II confounds me except his lack of ability to communicate has hampered him, coupled with his selection of Cheney.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What do you mean "if" a Republican were running with limited executive experience? Giuliani has served as a mayor of a large city. Is that greater than serving as a US Senator or being First Lady?

Fred Thompson was a US Senator.

Duncan Hunter- US Rep.

Alan Keyes- no executive experience

John McCain- Senator

Ron Paul- US Rep.

Tancredo- US Rep.

So go ahead and show me where you "heard about it" from me. Huckabee and Romney are the only 2 who have served as governors (neither from one of the major states you said they should serve from to be successful).

Your quote of "a lack [of executive experience] will guarantee disparate quality in results and leadership" is just not supported by the evidence.

Again, I think you are just wanting to see what you have become familiar with seeing since Reagan- a president with gubernatorial experience. Unfortunately, we haven't had many good presidents in that time frame.

I will give Tex credit for one thing- at least he was wise enough to drop out when he saw he had a losing argument.

In my mind, the only qualified candidates are Giuliani (I hate many of his ideas), Romney, and Huckabee. I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, but he lacks requisite experience.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In my mind, the only qualified candidates are Giuliani (I hate many of his ideas), Romney, and Huckabee. I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, but he lacks requisite experience.

Then answer me this:

1. Where is my quote that none of those guys are qualified? You said quite clearly I would make such a statement "if" similar Republicans were running (hint: they are).

2. Why do you consider Romney and Huckabee to be qualified? You noted "I would typically limit this experience to the gubernatorial positions in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and maybe New Jersey. If it comes from a smaller venue, closer inspection should be required." Romney is from Massachusetts and Huckabee is from Arkansas.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Then answer me this:

1. Where is my quote that none of those guys are qualified? You said quite clearly I would make such a statement "if" similar Republicans were running (hint: they are).

2. Why do you consider Romney and Huckabee to be qualified? You noted "I would typically limit this experience to the gubernatorial positions in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and maybe New Jersey. If it comes from a smaller venue, closer inspection should be required." Romney is from Massachusetts and Huckabee is from Arkansas.

Closer inspection is required.

But for a moderate Republican to have been successful in a Democratic state such as Mass, with successful economic management speaks well of him.

Huckabee seems to have garnered similar success, though I am a bit weary of having another Southerner. I'm tired of Southerners in the White House. First, I'm not a big fan of that accent in serious discussions and they tend to bring their friends with them.

You're not accusing them now, only because your candidate have less experience.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Closer inspection is required.

But for a moderate Republican to have been successful in a Democratic state such as Mass, with successful economic management speaks well of him.

Huckabee seems to have garnered similar success, though I am a bit weary of having another Southerner. I'm tired of Southerners in the White House. First, I'm not a big fan of that accent in serious discussions and they tend to bring their friends with them.

You're not accusing them now, only because your candidate have less experience.

Ah, that must be it.

I do find it amusing how frequently you assert that I only support a candidate based on whether or not they will do what I want them to do. Isn't that what everyone would hope for? Or are you supporting only the candidates who will certainly do the opposite of what you hope for?

You haven't provided any evidence at all that executive experience is critical to succeeding as president (or even helpful). All you have done is dive into tangents about your personal feelings for each president listed (all very interesting, but not very productive).

When you have some actual evidence, get back to me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

When you have some actual evidence, get back to me.

There will never be academic evidence on this theory.

In the first place, judging the quality of a President is a subjective exercise. However, in judging the process we select, my supposition is valid in other circles. You have not provided reasons why it should not be important in the selection of Presidents.

You have provided arguments which you suggest support a belief that it is not that important now that you can't make that argument for your preferred candidate. In short, you are nothing more than an apologist.

You do not select a candidate the way we would hire any other employee, but you are going with raw emotions.