Qualifications are overrated. Consider these guys: one was a former US House member, former US Senator, former ambassador to Russia and to Great Britain, and former Secretary of State. The other was a one term US House member, former state legislator, and failed business owner. Based on the above, James Buchanan would have been a better president than Abraham Lincoln.
There’s no way to know how someone will be as president until they have been president. I say throw out the resumes, give me someone with the right temperment who is neither too reckless (George W. Bush) nor too cautious
Wrong wrong wrong. Really, just stop trying to imagine how I (or other liberals) make decisions, you’re always wrong. I’m hopeful Clinton has learned her lesson on war, and I would support her over Paul because of domestic policy and foreign policy. I probably agree partly with Paul on foreign policy, but I agree more strongly with Clinton in general on foregin policy.
Well, at least I was right about that one. Liberals actually don’t care about qualifications.
As for whether or not that’s right, I think it’s shallow thinking. You just cherry pick a couple of examples, like Lincoln and GWB, and think that makes the case. But they are both exceptions that prove the rule. Lincoln was a TERRIBLE manager of the government, had no respect for constitutional limits on his power, and did a piss poor job of managing the union war effort as well. What Lincoln did have was moral certainty and determination, and like most people of that nature, didn’t believe that the details mattered.
GWB was a mediocre governor, a failed business owner, and then he became President. That proved the GIGO philosophy of Presidents.
When you look at the most popular Presidents of the postwar era, two were governors, and the third was only the supreme general of the Allied war effort. The career Senator(LBJ) proved good at passing legislation, which would be expected, but proved to be the worst Commander in Chief in history.
So yes, you can actually predict performance by resume. This has especially held true with the current President. His qualification is that he gives really nice speeches. And in office, he’s given really nice speeches.
Hillary Clinton’s a bit harder to judge because we can’t be clear on what her role was in the Clinton Presidency. Personally, I think she was a co-President and they will resume that working relationship if she enters the White House. So I figure we get pretty much what we got during the first Clinton Presidency. Which I’ll take.
Abe did what he had to do. Had he been a strict observer of constitutional limits, the war might have been lost. After firing a bunch of incompetent boob generals, he finally got it right.
I think you’re selling Obama short. In spite of Republican stonewalling, he got a health care bill passed. He kept us out of new wars and wound down old ones. And the economy has steadily improved in spite of the GOP’s effort to undermine it at every opportunity. He got Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons, toppled Khadafy without spilling a drop of American blood, and got Osama binLaden. His speechmaking skills have basically vanished- he is unable to coherently make a case for the ACA, for example. Now he’s showing great restraint in the Ukraine crisis while leading Republicans are sprinting to microphones to blast him for being timid and trying to blame the crisis on him.
Wrong again. We just care about different qualifications, which include things like “was he/she right about Iraq?”.
You’re way wrong about Lincoln, not surprisingly. Executive orders like the Emancipation Proclamation were not a violation of the Constitution – slavery was a violation of the Constitution (various amendments of the Bill of Rights), even before the 13th amendment.
Yes, but it had nothing to do with his qualifications. If GWB had been a Senator for 12 years plus a governor for 12 years, he still probably would have been a shitty president. It had nothing to do with his resume.
And none of this had anything to do with the on-paper qualifications – it had to do with the quality/talent/character of the person. And that’s part of their experience, even if it’s not on paper.
No, and no. The various successes and failures of Presidents was because of the person and not the resume. It’s ridiculous to make sweeping statements like this when you’re only including a half-dozen or so Presidents in your “statistics”. It’s like saying “the last five cars I’ve seen needing repairs were American cars, therefore American cars are less reliable”. Just ridiculous and useless analysis.
LOL- wrong again, although he is good at speeches.
And even by your own criteria, when Obama ran in 2012 he had more Presidential experience than every American alive except for four men.
Let’s figure out then why my list of Presidential candidates didn’t interest you. Is something wrong with them, other than their lack of celebrity status?
Insanely wrong indeed. Clinton was initially in favor of bombing the compound, although I believe she did come around to the view Obama had already reached which was to do a military raid. And to say Clinton had to push him into it is, shall we say, counterfactual.
Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown.
Heck, I’ll throw in O’Malley too, although I think he’s the GIGO candidate. He is a governor, but not a very good one, and I’m sure he’ll carry that mediocrity right into the Presidency if he succeeds in his quest to become President.
So you admit that he made the correct (and also very difficult) decision on exactly how to get Bin Laden. Good job for giving credit to the president for a very tough decision. Very un-Fox-News of you…
…and then you offer this load of dung. Cite?
The goalpost shifting continues, apparently for absolutely everything you say. How about the significant reduction in defense spending, including the elimination of some wasteful programs?
And this.
I could go on- you guys make this so easy I don’t even have to participate. But one more point on qualifications- the election is over, we’re done deciding between Obama and some other guy. It doesn’t matter anymore for him. All that matters is results. If Obama accomplished exactly nothing, that would be parsecs better than steering the country into the ditch with an unnecessary, $3 trillion war.
While stymied, he’s accomplishing more than nothing. By 2016 the GOP will have a record of talking nonsense and the Dems will have (unless things change) a stock market that more than doubled, a rebounding economy, health insurance for most, an increased minimum wage, maybe a highways repair bill, youth outreach and NO STUPID WARS.
All the MBAs in the world won’t make the GOP look good by comparison.
LOL. You are the King of the subject-changers and the goalpost-shifters. Perhaps you’re the Emperor, since that sounds like two kingdoms. You’re also the Duke of throwing-shit-against-the-wall-and-seeing-what-sticks.
And I’ll just reiterate that by adaher’s own (silly) ‘qualifications’ argument, Obama is far, far more qualified, even on paper alone, than all but 2 to 4 people in the country to be President of the USA. So if you don’t like him, then you don’t like your own argument.
If you’re willing to characterize O’Malley as “mediocre” he’s probably a stellar candidate. Reduced the state deficit, reduced crime (although Baltimore is a tough nut to crack), got both SSM legalized and the death penalty abolished - he seems to have had a pretty fruitful career as governor.
And he’s out this year (term limits) and is looking for bigger things…yeah, definitely a contender if Clinton doesn’t run.
I’ve heard that Richardson has some zipper issues that might haunt him in the future. He’s already tried to run and got little support.
Howard Dean is awesome. He’d have my full support, but “the scream” is indelibly etched in everyone’s mind. Maybe he could overcome it, but I think his time has passed him by.
Cuomo is also someone I could support, but let’s be practical. The NRA would mortgage its headquarters to go negaive on him big time. I think we’re better off strategically to nominate and elect moderate Democrats like Obama and the Clintons than to nominate a true liberal now. After a couple decades of Democratic prosperity, we can move to the left.
Governor Moonbeam is past his expiry date. He may be doing an admirable job in California thanks to a solid Democratic legislature but I don’t see him as a credible candidate.
O’Malley has some promise. If Hillary and Joe both decline to run, he might well have a chance. He’s a solid VP choice, in my opinion.
He would have geography working against him if Clinton runs and is looking for a VP; she’s NY so she’s unlikely to pick a Maryland running mate. Schweitzer is better placed - Montana-NY is a good match from that standpoint. Still, stranger things have happened.
