Posted by gmichailovic at 3:03am Sep 5 '08Andrew Johnson is heralded as one of the worst Presidents in the history of the United States (most have him hovering around second worst).
Johnson was elected to the House of Representatives. He was elected to the Senate. He was elected governor of Tennessee. He was Lincoln's Vice-President. And he failed miserably at being President (one of two Presidents to be impeached), even with that extensive and quite impressive resume.
James Buchanan is often referred to as the first or second worst President in the history of the U.S. House of Reps, Ambassador to Russia, Ambassador to Britain, chairman of the committee on foreign relations, Senator, Secretary of State, horrible President.
Out of 12 different polls conducted, Abraham Lincoln ranked #1 President of the U.S. six times, and was either #2 or #3 in the remaining six. Elected to the House of Reps, his terms weren't very successful and he became frustrated with the lack of progress, so he took a ten year hiatus from caring about politics and went on to practice law. Resuming politics, he mostly gave a lot of speeches, and as far as I can tell, he held no office for nearly sixteen years before being elected President, and goes down in the history books as one of the greatest Presidents ever with little to no "experience".
Whether we're discussing the "experience" of Palin or Obama, I'm a bit frustrated with all the debate over who is more experienced for two primary reasons.
First of all, Obama is running against McCain. Why everyone wants to compare Obama and Palin and criticize Palin confuses me. Yes, Palin has the potential to become President, and I'll come back to why I think a lack of experience isn't a bad thing. I also find it highly amusing how people criticize Obama for not having executive experience, and praise Palin for having it. Once again, Obama is running against McCain, and McCain doesn't have executive experience either. So how you can argue Palin's experience as being for the Republican ticket when the actual Presidential candidate doesn't have any is beyond me.
How much experience is enough? What kind of experience are we looking for? For instance, some people might bring up foreign policy, and even bring it up and say that since Palin ran Alaska and it traded with other countries, she has FP experience. What's foreign policy? Policies governing international relations. How you can stretch the meaning of policies between two nations into policies between a nation and one state of a nation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Obama is also a bit deprived in the FP arena, so neither of them appear to be exceptionally experienced in the matter.
On to my point.
What ever would Obama do if he was elected and had to deal with leaders of other nations? I don't suppose he would have a Secretary of State, who would happen to be in charge of matters relating to foreign affairs, who would brief him and give him the relevant information so he could make decisions using his judgment. Why would he? That's only what EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT DOES.
What ever would he do if he had a question about federal policy, or about the budget? I don't suppose he would have a cabinet-level office called the Office of Management and Budget (which is the largest office in the executive office), where five hundred people would come in every day to their offices and make phone calls and do research and peck away at their computers to write little briefs for the President to read.
Presidents have some of the best-educated advisers in the world serving by their sides, and they give them a wide selection of opinions, the topics of which can range from budgetary issues to how they need to comb their hair to look best.
Am I saying experience doesn't matter, that the President doesn't do much work, and it's easy?
No, I'm saying you need to be 35 years old to be President, not have 35 years of local, state, and federal experience for anyone to even dare consider you. I'd rather elect a candidate that I believe exercises good judgment, has intelligent people working for him and provide him or her the necessary details, stands up what for what he or she believes is best for the country and that which does not violate my, or anyone else's, personal liberty or safety as accorded by the Constitution, and has a consistent base of beliefs that are comparable to mine.
But that's just me.
P.S. That doesn't mean I'm endorsing Obama, I merely used him as an example. Some of his rhetoric and actions after knocking Clinton out of the way leave me unsure about how trustworthy and honest he is.
Johnson was elected to the House of Representatives. He was elected to the Senate. He was elected governor of Tennessee. He was Lincoln's Vice-President. And he failed miserably at being President (one of two Presidents to be impeached), even with that extensive and quite impressive resume.
James Buchanan is often referred to as the first or second worst President in the history of the U.S. House of Reps, Ambassador to Russia, Ambassador to Britain, chairman of the committee on foreign relations, Senator, Secretary of State, horrible President.
Out of 12 different polls conducted, Abraham Lincoln ranked #1 President of the U.S. six times, and was either #2 or #3 in the remaining six. Elected to the House of Reps, his terms weren't very successful and he became frustrated with the lack of progress, so he took a ten year hiatus from caring about politics and went on to practice law. Resuming politics, he mostly gave a lot of speeches, and as far as I can tell, he held no office for nearly sixteen years before being elected President, and goes down in the history books as one of the greatest Presidents ever with little to no "experience".
Whether we're discussing the "experience" of Palin or Obama, I'm a bit frustrated with all the debate over who is more experienced for two primary reasons.
First of all, Obama is running against McCain. Why everyone wants to compare Obama and Palin and criticize Palin confuses me. Yes, Palin has the potential to become President, and I'll come back to why I think a lack of experience isn't a bad thing. I also find it highly amusing how people criticize Obama for not having executive experience, and praise Palin for having it. Once again, Obama is running against McCain, and McCain doesn't have executive experience either. So how you can argue Palin's experience as being for the Republican ticket when the actual Presidential candidate doesn't have any is beyond me.
How much experience is enough? What kind of experience are we looking for? For instance, some people might bring up foreign policy, and even bring it up and say that since Palin ran Alaska and it traded with other countries, she has FP experience. What's foreign policy? Policies governing international relations. How you can stretch the meaning of policies between two nations into policies between a nation and one state of a nation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Obama is also a bit deprived in the FP arena, so neither of them appear to be exceptionally experienced in the matter.
On to my point.
What ever would Obama do if he was elected and had to deal with leaders of other nations? I don't suppose he would have a Secretary of State, who would happen to be in charge of matters relating to foreign affairs, who would brief him and give him the relevant information so he could make decisions using his judgment. Why would he? That's only what EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT DOES.
What ever would he do if he had a question about federal policy, or about the budget? I don't suppose he would have a cabinet-level office called the Office of Management and Budget (which is the largest office in the executive office), where five hundred people would come in every day to their offices and make phone calls and do research and peck away at their computers to write little briefs for the President to read.
Presidents have some of the best-educated advisers in the world serving by their sides, and they give them a wide selection of opinions, the topics of which can range from budgetary issues to how they need to comb their hair to look best.
Am I saying experience doesn't matter, that the President doesn't do much work, and it's easy?
No, I'm saying you need to be 35 years old to be President, not have 35 years of local, state, and federal experience for anyone to even dare consider you. I'd rather elect a candidate that I believe exercises good judgment, has intelligent people working for him and provide him or her the necessary details, stands up what for what he or she believes is best for the country and that which does not violate my, or anyone else's, personal liberty or safety as accorded by the Constitution, and has a consistent base of beliefs that are comparable to mine.
But that's just me.
P.S. That doesn't mean I'm endorsing Obama, I merely used him as an example. Some of his rhetoric and actions after knocking Clinton out of the way leave me unsure about how trustworthy and honest he is.
Experience? orly - gmichailovic