I was just curious...... 1) In your mind, who are the top 2 or 3 U.S. Presidents of all time....and why? (Note: BLAZER PROPHET loves this topic and, I'm sure, will weigh-in.) 2) If at all, what background makes a better President? Senator? Congressman? Other? Does it matter? 3) In the last, say, couple of decades, why don't we ever seem to have compelling Presidential candidates (either party(ies)? Doesn't anyone want to be President anymore? Thanks, as always.
1) Picking the top 2 is easy- Washington & Lincoln as we might not have a country if not for them. But to choose #3 is tough. Polk, FDR, TR, Truman & Regan all come to mind. And I'll say Jefferson to keep know nothings off my back. Each of those Presidents did things I greatly admire, but all did different things to admire. 2) In this day & age, there's no substitution for experience. In a perfect world, I'd like to see a man start at a local or state level and especially as a Governor of a large state with an international or ocean boundary. From there, a minimum of 15-20 years of federal government experience with no less that 12 of those in Congress. Then, maybe in their late 50's or early 60's make that run for the White House. 3) Partly it's either a lack of experience or candidates being in the right place at the right time (Clinton comes to mind). Also, (and I will not state the reason why), running for President has become somewhat of a beauty contest. The best & brightest either are not running or they aren't sexy enough. Anyway, some short thoughts on the matter.
1) I don't put any of them on a pedestal. They've all had their good points and bad points. 2) Depends on the person. For example, Clinton, although he was merely a small-state governor, was a relatively successful president because he was smart and cared about policy, so he educated himself about the federal government. Without those latter qualities, he probably would have needed at least some and maybe a lot of experience in federal government to be competent. I don't believe being a big-state governor is necessarily the route to a successful presidency, one doesn't have to go back very far to disprove that, but it certainly isn't a bad thing to have on the resume. 3) Virginia, your little friends who say there are no compelling Presidential candidates are wrong. They have been affected by the cynicism of a cynical age. barfo
Well, uh, with the exception of barfo & myself this thread isn't exactly a hotbed of posts. So maybe everyone is waiting on you.
I guess you're in the minority, then. Thanks for playing, though. The lovely Donna has a nice parting gift for you out back.
Clinton, Eisenhower, and Reagan, at least in my lifetime. Ike ended the Democratic police action in Korea. Reagan turned a gloomy economic outlook like the one we're experiencing now and turned us into a dynamo for decades. Clinton shrank government and agreed to the good things his opposing party had to offer. I think you see with Obama what happens when you elect a guy with no executive branch experience. When a governor is elected president, he brings an already experienced staff along with him to the white house. In Obama's case, he had no such staff and the people he's hired still don't look like they understand what it takes to run a tiny state like Arkansas let alone the federal government. Few candidates for any office make me want to stand and salute or follow them into battle should they ask. This is not uncommon, though, as the truly great presidents stand out among a lot of guys who weren't so great.
I'm not as fired up about Jefferson as most. I like (obviously) Washington, but for all the faults you could find, I think Teddy was one of the best Presidents. As far as "respecting as a man", GHWB in my lifetime. By the time he became Reagan's VP, he'd already lived and served one heck of a life.
What the hell is wrong with Jefferson? I'm a big fan of how Jefferson and Madison looked at government. Madison was a pimp. Anyway. 1. Personally, I don't care what BP says, I like Jefferson because he was willing to take a risk and buy up half our damn country. He was very much opposed to government spending, but he saw an opportunity and he took it (actually he wasn't the one who made the decision, but he sent the guys to France who ultimately made the buy). I like TR, and Washington... definitely not a fan of Adams. I know more about the framers and founding fathers than I do Lincoln. I know the cliff notes but I'm not really a civil war buff. Outside of slavery, what other policies did he have that left a lasting impression? Just curious what you guys think. 2. Born leader. I don't care if he was a governor, senator, or city commissioner. The guy has to be a born leader. JFK wasn't a governor, but he was a born leader. 3. I think the problem is that the parties are too powerful now, and I think the establishment is stifling the right candidates. How could someone come along and rock the boat? They like things the way they are. I don't think someone like Lincoln would ever get elected today. They want someone who looks good, sounds good, but spends their time shmoozing rather than make real decisions.
I don't know that we necessarily need Washington reincarnate, but I think the Senate really needs a Henry Clay. Those bunch of dipwads...I mean, we're in one of the bigger jams we've been in in a long time (b/w wars, economy, unemployment, etc) and the people at the helm are Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, and McConnell? Even if this Gang Of Twelve thing went through and became a good idea, I can't pick twelve people in Congress that I think are smart or honest enough to solve the problems (or find the people who can help them do so)
And do you honestly ever see it changing Brian? I don't. I think the system is so corrupt and messed up that it's beyond saving. We need to hit the reset button.
