No - I am thinking about it, and you would like to pretend that I am not.
And, as Starving Artist points out, it is vaguely amusing to see some Dopers accuse others of knee-jerk thinking.
Regards,
Shodan
You know guys, you’d probably have a stronger case about me being a blindly partisan party hack if it wasn’t for the fact that I’m a Republican. You’ll note in my comparison of Carter and Reagan that I said Reagan was better. I guess I should have followed the current party line and said that Carter was evil and Ronald Reagan was The Greatest And Most Perfectest Human Being To Have Ever Walked The Earth so as to make the contrast between them clearer.
Yeah, that would have been good. 
But seriously, the current argument with you has to do with your challenging Reagan’s experience, knowledge and connections vs. Carter’s and asserting over and over again that they were equal.
The partisanship issue is an aside which you brought up originally. I admit to being surprised to hear that you are a Republican, but honestly my comments regarding partisanship in your case went more to your apparently blind devotion to, or support of, Carter.
You’re absolutely right. Their resumes weren’t equal. Carter’s was superior.
Carter:
Military experience
Graduate of Naval Academy
Top 7% of his class, with a difficult major (physics)
Post-graduate work in nuclear physics
Business experience prior to becoming governor
Served on board of governors of several institutions before entering politics
Legislative experience prior to becoming governor
Governor who pushed through a reform agenda in the face of a recalcitrant legislature
Reagan:
Actor
Sometimes played a military man in the movies, when he wasn’t co-starring with a chimp
Oh, wait, he served in the “1st Motion Picture Unit” during World War II :rolleyes:
By his own admission, no better than a ‘C’ student at tiny Eureka College
Sports announcer
Union leader
No legislative experience
No business experience
Governor on the strength of his fame as an actor, with few accomplishments during his gubernatorial term
What’s comical is your (and Shodan’s) blind devotion to the idea that Reagan entered the presidency better-qualified than Carter.
But since it seems that all experience is the same, then Reagan’s military experience was just as good as Carter’s. So was his college background - they both graduated, ergo their experience was exactly equivalent.
You are trying (not very successfully) to have it both ways - putting the best possible spin on the lesser gubernatorial experience of Mr. Peanut when it is to his advantage, and pretending there is no difference when it is clearly not to his advantage.
The whole point of Carter’s campaign for President was that he was an outsider, because he had no Washington experience. For almost the first time, we elected a President who was looking for an entry-level position. The only reasons he got in were Watergate, and Ford’s gaffe about Poland.
Then he made it to the Oval Office, with the expectation that it was going to be like being governor of Georgia, only more so. Then he found that it wasn’t, and that putting on a sweater wasn’t going to address the energy crisis anymore than making nice kept the Soviets from invading Afghanistan. The silly snot took a speed-reading course with the idea that he would read every word of every document brought to him, and wound up so bogged down in detail that he was assigning time slots to the White House tennis courts.
Fortunately, he then lost to an opponent with more, and better, experience in governing. With the observed effects on the prime rate, inflation, the misery index, employment, the poverty rate, the USSR, Afghanistan, Poland, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but given the realities of human memory and how events since an event can change perception of that event, I’m going to up and question the notion that JFK was an inspirational President. His administration was short, unimpressive in terms of accomplishments even given its shortness, and was not particularly noted for being a time of unusual optimism. I would in fact suggest that the administration of Dwight Eisenhower, which immediately preceded Kennedy’s, was probably THE all-time high point of American optimism.
Kennedy has been deified in large part because he was assassinated, giving him the status of martyr. His words have been elevated above their perception at the time because no more words could be had from him after his death. He was certainly not any more popular than most Presidents as these things go prior to November 22, 1963.
Whoa, now. Just wait a second - California is the largest state in the Union by population. Georgia is the ninth largest state by population. Just where are we making our “large state” cut-off? Number five :)?
Rather like what I expect an Obama Presidency would be like if, God forbid, some nutcase shot him early into his term.
Even if he pulled something like the Bay of Pigs or the missile crisis. He was young (relatively speaking), pretty, and well-spoken. And he symbolized Hope, and Camelot and glamor and all that.
Then his dour-faced and scheming Vice-President would take over. And I don’t like Hilary.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the point is how Georgia and California compare to each other, not to the other states. Maybe GA is in the top ten - CA is two or three times larger, and far more economically important and diverse.
It would be like comparing the Prime Minister of Portugal with that of Germany. Maybe Portugal is a big country. Leading Germany is still a bigger job. IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
Remember 50-mile walks?
I would submit that anyone who could get so many Americans to try to walk fifty miles in one day is by their very definition exceedingly inspirational.
But perhaps I should define what I meant by mentioning Kennedy along with Reagan in terms of being inspirational, as they were inspirational in different ways. Reagan had the ability to re-instill pride in being American, and to make people optimistic about the future (which was exactly what the country needed following the doldrums caused by the Carter administration).
Kennedy, rather than being inspirational to the country about its future (although in certain ways he was), was inspirational to people on a personal level. He was young, handsome, vigorous and charismatic (this last being a de facto requisite, IMO, to being inspirational in the first place). He got people interested in physical fitness (the 50-mile walk being one example, the touch football craze being another) and in sacrificing time and effort of their own in service to others (the Peace Corp). He was cheered by adoring crowds wherever he went, even abroad (helped in no small part here by his adoringly beautiful, charming and stylish wife).
On the national level, like you say, he didn’t have time to accomplish much - though I do recall that his inaugural reading of “Ask not…” made quite a significant impact even at that time. He was inspirational in terms of getting people behind the space program with his declaration that we would put a man on the moon within a decade, and I believe that his embracing of and support for the civil rights movement made the transition go more smoothly than it might have otherwise (not that it went all that smoothly to begin with, but I do believe that his having backed it made a significant segment of the population take a second look at their own view regarding racial equality).
Both Kennedy and Reagan brought a Hollywood-style glamour to the White House. Whereas people like to call Clinton a rock star president, Kennedy was a movie star president, and this also, I believe, played into his ability to get people to like and support him.
And a side note, people gained an even greater appreciation of him once the scary Cuban Missle Crisis was over. People felt at the time that Khrushchev thought he could take advantage of Kennedy’s youth and inexperience (and IMO, the fact that he was a Democrat (:D) and that they hadn’t tried it with [General] Eisenhower in office) to get away with installing and aiming nuclear weapons at us from ninety miles offshore, and Kennedy backed him down. Now I will grant that this doesn’t go so much toward inspirational ability, but it did grant him a certain gravitas and it earned him a great deal of respect from quarters where he didn’t necessarily have it before.
I was around then, and JFK was idolized by many even when he was alive. He was considered young and inspiring after the much older Ike. He had a pretty wife and little kids. Marilyn sang to him and Vaughn Meader made a fortune imitating him. I don’t know what to say about optimism - America had been on a roll since the end of WW II, and the pessimism that came after his assassination and Vietnam hadn’t happened yet.
It is true that LBJ, that master of congressional politics, had a better legislative record. But he was pretty inspirational, even at the time.
So, where does Texas fall into this spectrum. 
We have an example that leading a big state is no guarantee of competence.
In terms of experience, we haven’t had as experience a president as Bush the elder since LBJ and possibly before. This really paid off in Iraq War I, where he did everything right - and events since has shown how right he and Powell were. But he was still a failure because of lack of inspiration.
You can delegate management, so long as you know where you want to go. That’s what Reagan did. But you have to have enough self confidence to hold the course. This Bush appointed pretty experience people, who ran all over him. Any decent executive would have fired Rummys ass long before Bush did. But we know Bush was an incompetent businessman.
Business executives in general haven’t done terribly well in government. Look at Herbert Hoover or Robert McNamara. CEOs don’t have over 400 people kibitzing, the board is pretty much hand picked, and the stockholders have less day to day input than even voters.
And now we’re finally back to what I was concerned about originally - i.e., does Obama have the right connections and knowledge of personnel to be able to choose and bring on board the right management?
And we also have a recent example of the governer of a small state doing quite well in the White House.
Point being, experience isn’t what makes a successful president. Experience isn’t necessary (see Lincoln) nor is experience a guarantee of success (see Carter and Bush).
In my view, a successful presidency is less dependent on prior job titles than on an innate talent for inspiration and leadership. I believe Obama has those qualities.
What the heck are you talking about? Go back and read my post. I said that they had comparible experience before becoming president - and then said that Reagan was better because he was a better communicater. So where do get blind devotion to Carter out of that?
Jerry Brown was a two term governor of California. So I guess he would make a great president.
Your posts are my cite.
Seriously though, I wasn’t referring to just that one comment. The overall thrust of your posts in this thread seem - to me anyway - to be defending Carter and arguing that there is essentially no difference between him and Reagan in regard to political experience (which was really beside the point to begin with as I only mentioned their experience in order to illustrate the contrast between their respective staff and cabinet members), and the only purpose was to illustrate why I had concerns about Obama’s experience and whether he would have the ability to bring with him the type of people he’d likely need in order to fulfill the promise of his candidacy.
You and a couple of others then changed the focus of the issue to whether or not Reagan’s experience was greater than Carter’s. Shodan and I both said it was and posted explanations (and in Shodan’s case, factual statistics) to show why we felt that way, which you responded to with accusations of partisanship on our part.
Now, to me it appears you have made numerous attempts in this thread to equal Carter’s experience with Reagan’s, and that you’ve repeatedly become annoyed at our view that Reagan’s experience was superior to Carter’s, and it was this annoyance combined with your repeated attempts to show that Carter was Reagan’s equal in this regard that prompted my comment as to what I perceived as your allegiance to Carter.
I’m willing to admit that perhaps I’ve misread what you’ve been trying to say to me in this thread, but so far it has appeared to me that you have some sort of a burr under your blanket with regard to criticism of Carter, and I do apologize if I have somehow misread your intent.
On preview, and in regard to your comment about Jerry Brown…it isn’t my contention that Reagan’s experience alone made him a great president. I’m saying that his experience made him privy to the acquaintanceship of (and/or access to) many of the best and brightest - the types of people that both Reagan and Kennedy brought on board to make their administrations successful.
Try to imagine Reagan or Kennedy with Carter’s staff and and I think you’ll see what I’m driving at.
In regards to the above, the real question for me is this:
Besides Bill Clinton, how many of these former governers knew they wanted to be president since high school?
My point was that Carter and Reagan did have comparable levels of experience when they ran for president. If you had just typed up their resumes and compared them the differences would be too insignificant to choose between them. (I mean seriously, are you really going to try to defend the notion that the governor of the first largest state is significantly more qualified than the governor of the ninth largest state? Does that hold all the way down the line? Is the governor of South Dakota better than the governor of North Dakota?)
So the real difference between Carter and Reagan was based on factors other than their levels of experience. People chose Reagan because of his ideology or because of his charisma not because of his experience. Ideology and charisma explained the difference between two-term California Governor Ronald Reagand and two-term California Governor Jerry Brown.
The problem with ideology and charisma however is that they’re subjective. People all have their own opinions on them and you can’t just transfer them on to other voters. If somebody had said they prefered Carter’s ideology to Reagan’s or thought Carter was more charismatic than Reagan, you might disagree with them but you couldn’t say they’re wrong.
And that’s when people feel the need to come up with things like job experience. It’s an attempt to supply objective evidence for a decision that was actually made for subjective reasons.
And to bring it all back to 2008, it’s fine to say that you prefer McCain over Clinton because you feel McCain is more trustworthy than Clinton or that you prefer Romney over Obama because Romney’s ideology is sounder than Obama’s. But if you really believe that experience is the most important factor than you should have been supporting Joe Biden all along.