His technical ability sucked major ass.
He lost three planes due to his own ineptitude before he was finally shot down, losing his fourth.
I doubt that many politicians have that much interest in technology (Al Gore being a notable exception). They are for the most part people people. Their main interest in life is in establishing the right relationships with people, selling people on ideas, concepts, programs, etc. To them, a person who spends the bulk of his or her time using a tool, is a tool – and they see computers, tablets, etc., as tools. And they do not want anyone thinking they are a tool. So they would naturally gravitate away from technology.
Plus, a lot of them are of average intelligence and some of them are definitely below average (I’m lookin’ at you, Mr. Gomert.) Learning computer operating systems is hard for them. Learning people comes easy.
I thrown the name Lamar Alexander out there. He made major school reforms during his terms as governor of Tennessee. He has served as president of the University of Tennessee system, as the Secretary of Education.
He has supported science funding. Real science. Including a so called mini Manhattan Projects for energy.
He is one of the most bipartisan Republicans in the Senate. Knows how to get things done.
And he is 74 years old… too old for the standards in this thread.
And a politician should be concerned with establishing relationships with people. The thing is, though, in the modern world, e-mail and other electronic communication tools are an essential part of establishing relationships. A candidate who can’t use e-mail is poor not because it reflects on their lack of technical skills; they’re poor because it reflects on their lack of social skills.
Lamar Alexander is a good one.
The age thing really makes a candidate’s window limited though, doesn’t it? If they are in their 40s they are often too young, if they are in their late 60s, too old. Given the realities of the electoral process(you don’t usually challenge an incumbent of your own party in the White House, and you really don’t want to waste your shot on a popular incumbent of the other party), that means a lot of really great candidates only get one shot. Mario Cuomo famously missed out on his best chance to be President and then by 2000 he was 68.
I wish that Herman Cain, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, and/or Al Sharpton would run again just for pure entertainment value.
I’d like to see moderate leaners Buddy Roemer and/or Gary Johnson in the mix again even if they end up on 3rd party tickets as both did in 2012 general election.
And in 2000 he was also competing against the VP of the popular incumbent, which is nearly as tough as competing against the incumbent himself.
That was Bradley. They do look a little alike though.
Pat Buchanan. Not only do I agree with him on several issues, I went to some of his rallies when he did run. An absolute blast.
Lyndon LaRouche just for the jokes. He’d only be 102 at the end of his 2nd term so age is not a factor.
I’ll give a third to Howard Dean. A thoughtful, articulate economic populist. He’d have my vote if he jumped in.
Howard Dean would make a great President, IF he learned to be less virulently partisan. I think he’s capable of it, it’s just that he thought that was the best niche for him in the 2004 race. Then he became DNC chairman, which requires you to be a red meat partisan. But that’s not who he was in Vermont and if he ever becomes President or VP, I hope that’s not who he’ll be.
I recall an issue of National Review from the time of Dean’s candidacy – the cover was a Vermont scene labeled “HELL” and the feature article was all about how horribly granola-crunching liberal the state was under his administration.
But I failed to see how anything they described was supposed to be scary.
He’s also the current US Special Envoy to Northern Ireland. Throw in Armed Services and Intelligence Committee service and he’s not all that bad for at least checking some of the foreign policy blocks. Better than many in or expected to be in the race. Hard to compare to a recent Secretary of State in that arena though.
He’s certainly more qualified on paper than Obama was.
That’s a very low bar. No President in history has actually been less qualified on paper.
I’d rank Hart lower than Clinton, any governor, any military guy.
Oh yeah, how come no love for Wes Clark? People got really excited about him briefly. Seems to me that the argument for Clark is still the same as it every was, it’s just that he went all politician on us because he was getting bad advice from a lot of former Clinton hacks. They turned a no-nonsense military guy into Mr. Inoffensive Centrist Democrat.
Now Jim Webb, he’s a military guy who tells you what he thinks, and he isn’t about to accept Democratic orthodoxy just because some political guru tells him so
It’s these sorts of statements that you should really, really think about before posting.
I thought of Lincoln. He was a vet. That’s a qualification. And the fact that you had to go that far back speaks volumes.
He was in the militia. If that’s a qualification, so is being a community organizer. Obama was a Senator for longer than Lincoln was a Congressman, and they were in the state legislature for about the same amount of time.
No it doesn’t – that was just off the top of my head.
Other Presidents with not much “on-paper” resume experience: Zachary Taylor (was a Major General and a war hero, never held any political office), Franklin Pierce (Congressman for 4 years, Senator for 5, rather pathetic failure of an appointed straight-to-high-ranks military career after time in the Senate), Lincoln, Chester A Arthur (Port Collector of NY for 7 years, VP for all of 6 months, and that’s it!), Grover Cleveland (2 years as a local sheriff, 11 months as a mayor, 2 years as governor), Benjamin Harrison (6 years as Senator and that’s it), Teddy Roosevelt (1 years as Asst Sec of Navy, 1 years as governor, 7 months as VP, plus military experience/war hero), Woodrow Wilson (2 years as governor and that’s it!), Warren G. Harding (2 years as Lt. Governor, 6 years as Senator), Herbert Hoover (8 years as Sec of Commerce and that’s it), George W Bush (governor for 6 years).
Obama’s 4 years in the Senate plus 8 years in the Illinois Senate compares favorably to most of these.
The assertion that “no president has been less qualified on paper” is just ridiculous.
Only if you consider legislator to be superior to leadership experience. And remember that Obama was a Senator not more than one year before running for President became his full time job.
All the others you mentioned had tons more experience at leadership and administration than Obama.
Huh? Some of those listed only had legislative experience.
This would apply to most of the ones I listed as well (for some or other office).
Bullshit. You just can’t see straight on this. Lincoln didn’t. Hoover didn’t. Arthur didn’t. Pierce didn’t (unless you count a bullshit, unearned military appointment).