Planted questions for Hillary

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

What foundations did she start? Name them.

Wow...she served on the boards of corporations huh? That doesn't mean she led anything.

5 Senate committes...great. Did she accomplish or lead anything?

What legislation did she sponsor? Just because someone sponsors legislation doesn't mean they are an effective leader. If it's crappy legislation, they're a crappy leader.

Partner in a law firm? Is that supposed to be good?

Millions of people were "inspired" to follow Hitler also.

Yeah, call me crazy, but I don't like dishonest, manipulative, ugly, lying, cheating, Socialist, tax hiking people to be my President.

It's almost like I predicted this...

"No, I just know ahead of time that no matter what I put out there, you are going to say it isn't evidence of leadership."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why do supporters of Hillary and Obama give them a pass on their lack of executive and leadership experience?

And why are you willing to allow somebody with absolutely zero executive experience to take on the most difficult executive position in the world?

If Republicans were supporting somebody that inexperienced, I'd understand the complaint. But that's the key, Democrats give anybody with a liberal card a free pass on ability or experience. Republicans do a terrible job, a terrible job, but due to the scrutiny, they usually put up persons with good experience, not always ability.

I was thinking about Supreme Court nominees. The process Bush has endured has ensured that most of his nominees have been good quality jurists. When Clinton was in office, all that mattered was the liberal litmus test and whether the person was of the correct gender. Ability had nothing to do with it.

And so we are here, with the two leading Democratic candidates with zero executive experience, and my well-schooled and otherwise level-headed co-posters here have no qualms giving the hardest job in the world to person of no demonstrable executive experience or skills. Even if you don't answer by a post, don't you feel just a wee bit uncomfortable with that decision?

I know it wouldn't fly in boardroom, except if one were merely seeking "juice".

It wouldn't fly in academia. Will a guy with no executive administrative experience be appointed as Provost of Harvard or Stanford?

Experience is the best teacher and why should the Presidency be a candidate's first executive training ground?

The Dems have candidates with experience, such as Richardson, but nobody has the good sense to back him.

It is a good thing executive leadership isn't a prerequisite to the presidency, or Lincoln would have never been elected.

Good thing Carter had plenty.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is a good thing executive leadership isn't a prerequisite to the presidency, or Lincoln would have never been elected.

Good thing Carter had plenty.

So you've gone and found two contrarian examples. Bravo to your brilliance, Cali.

I don't think even Arch is arguing that executive experience is the only barometer to measure candidate worthiness for office, but I think his point is a good one that it is better to have than not.

That Lincoln and Carter ran against the grain doesn't really mean much.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is a good thing executive leadership isn't a prerequisite to the presidency, or Lincoln would have never been elected.

Good thing Carter had plenty.

Is executive experience the only barometer? No.

Should we go back before the Presidency became modern, bureaucratic and exceptionally demanding? No.

Can you sometimes get lucky and catch a flier? Yes.

Do you bet on an inside straight? If you do, what does Vegas call those persons? Losers and contributors to the wealth of gamers.

My point is, executive experience should be the first litmus test before we look at ability and other philosophies.

If we have an executive, was that executive successful and in what context?

I would typically limit this experience to the gubernatorial positions in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and maybe New Jersey. If it comes from a smaller venue, closer inspection should be required.

If I were in an HR department, the standards would defend my approach and nothing in the industry would defend an approach to even consider Hillary or Obama.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

So you've gone and found two contrarian examples. Bravo to your brilliance, Cali.

I don't think even Arch is arguing that executive experience is the only barometer to measure candidate worthiness for office, but I think his point is a good one that it is better to have than not.

That Lincoln and Carter ran against the grain doesn't really mean much.

There are plenty of examples (which you know, because we have gone through this exact same conversation before).

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...+experience%22

Others with no executive experience (including those in the link above):

Truman
Jackson
John Adams
Kennedy
Madison
LBJ
Monroe
Cleveland
J.Q. Adams


In other words, of our 20 best presidents (according to a scholarly ranking published on Tex's favorite site- Wikipedia), only 6 served as a governor prior to being the president.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

There are plenty of examples (which you know, because we have gone through this exact same conversation before).

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...+experience%22

Others with no executive experience (including those in the link above):

Truman
Jackson
John Adams
Kennedy
Madison
LBJ
Monroe
Cleveland
J.Q. Adams


In other words, of our 20 best presidents (according to a scholarly ranking published on Tex's favorite site- Wikipedia), only 6 served as a governor prior to being the president.

I don't care about pre-Modern era Presidents. Anything before FDR doesn't really count.

And LBJ and Kennedy were disasters. Kennedy got popular in death, not due to his abilities in life.

Prior to the evolution of the modern presidency other factors mattered.

You really wish to argue executive experience doesn't and shouldn't matter. That's like saying Greek culture and philosophy had nothing to do with early Christianity.

Instead of admitting, you're inconsistent and simply wish for somebody who will vote the way you wish, you're making an inconsistent argument that experience is irrelevant to the selecting of a potentially good president.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't care about pre-Modern era Presidents. Anything before FDR doesn't really count.

When it comes to the "experience requirement" I completely agree. The bloat of the federal beauracracy is not to be underestimated.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't care about pre-Modern era Presidents. Anything before FDR doesn't really count.

And LBJ and Kennedy were disasters. Kennedy got popular in death, not due to his abilities in life.

Prior to the evolution of the modern presidency other factors mattered.

You really wish to argue executive experience doesn't and shouldn't matter. That's like saying Greek culture and philosophy had nothing to do with early Christianity.

Instead of admitting, you're inconsistent and simply wish for somebody who will vote the way you wish, you're making an inconsistent argument that experience is irrelevant to the selecting of a potentially good president.

Even if you are only going to look at presidents since FDR, here is how it looks:

Truman (not governor)
Eisenhower (not governor)
Kennedy (not governor)
LBJ (not governor)
Nixon (not governor)
Ford (not governor)
Carter (governor)
Reagan (governor)
GHW Bush (not governor)
Clinton (governor)
Bush (governor)

Since FDR, then, there have been 11 presidents, and only 4 of them have been governors (Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush). If you are going to say that to be qualified for the presidency, you have to be a governor, then I would expect that those 4 presidents listed above are in the top 4 best presidents since FDR.

Do you think they were?

Here is how the scholars on the report cited in Wikipedia ranked them:

Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
LBJ
Reagan (first governor to appear, ranked 15th overall)
Clinton (#2)
GWB (#3)
GHWB
Carter (#4)
Ford
Nixon

Doesn't seem to support your theory, does it?

If I were to guess, you think that being a governor is important because you are accustomed to seeing a governor in the white house (given that all have been governors since Reagan except for GHWB), and not because there is an actual correlation to governors being better presidents.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Even if you are only going to look at presidents since FDR, here is how it looks:

Truman (not governor)
Eisenhower (not governor)
Kennedy (not governor)
LBJ (not governor)
Nixon (not governor)
Ford (not governor)
Carter (governor)
Reagan (governor)
GHW Bush (not governor)
Clinton (governor)
Bush (governor)

Since FDR, then, there have been 11 presidents, and only 4 of them have been governors (Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush). If you are going to say that to be qualified for the presidency, you have to be a governor, then I would expect that those 4 presidents listed above are in the top 4 best presidents since FDR.

Do you think they were?

Here is how the scholars on the report cited in Wikipedia ranked them:

Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
LBJ
Reagan (first governor to appear, ranked 15th overall)
Clinton (#2)
GWB (#3)
GHWB
Carter (#4)
Ford
Nixon

Doesn't seem to support your theory, does it?

If I were to guess, you think that being a governor is important because you are accustomed to seeing a governor in the white house (given that all have been governors since Reagan except for GHWB), and not because there is an actual correlation to governors being better presidents.

You assume I accept Wikipedia as an academic source. I accept it as a cybersource, not an academic source.

Second, let's look at each one.

Eisenhower, he had executive experience by virtue of his position as a Five Star General.

And anything that rates LBJ as a successful President loses all credibility. He didn't even run for the second term due to his grandiose success. Even Landslied Lyndon served a number years as VP under Kennedy.

What success did Kennedy have before dying? He was barely elected and was immensely unpopular before assassination.

I wonder why Truman was so highly rated, because he was a breath of fresh air after Roosevelt? Did he serve a second term?

What is the basis for ranking these guys after all? If you only served one term you are great?

Bush 1, Head of CIA, and VP. Seems like he had some executive experience but then again he was so unpopular he couldn't win a second term.

Nixon served for eight years as VP under Eisenhower, and also ran but lost the gubernatorial position in California around 1962. I don't find him to have been a particularly good president, except for some aspects of foreign affairs. I find him to have been a terrible domestic president.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You assume I accept Wikipedia as an academic source. I accept it as a cybersource, not an academic source.

Second, let's look at each one.

Eisenhower, he had executive experience by virtue of his position as a Five Star General.

And anything that rates LBJ as a successful President loses all credibility. He didn't even run for the second term due to his grandiose success. Even Landslied Lyndon served a number years as VP under Kennedy.

What success did Kennedy have before dying? He was barely elected and was immensely unpopular before assassination.

I wonder why Truman was so highly rated, because he was a breath of fresh air after Roosevelt? Did he serve a second term?

What is the basis for ranking these guys after all? If you only served one term you are great?

Bush 1, Head of CIA, and VP. Seems like he had some executive experience but then again he was so unpopular he couldn't win a second term.

Nixon served for eight years as VP under Eisenhower, and also ran but lost the gubernatorial position in California around 1962. I don't find him to have been a particularly good president, except for some aspects of foreign affairs. I find him to have been a terrible domestic president.

You are apparently measuring success of a president as their popularity. That typically isn't a very good standard (again, ask Lincoln).

You are also dodging the question. Do you rank the 4 governors in the top 4 of best presidents since FDR?

And I am not using Wikipedia as a source of anything. I am using them as a convenient link to show you a copy of scholarly studies done on presidential rankings (reprinted in Wikipedia).

And you are just making up tons of stuff in your post.

JFK's popularity was around 60% when he died (higher than Reagan, HW Bush, and Carter and only slightly lower than Clinton at the end of their respective time in office).

LBJ is rated favorably by most scholarly studies. His domestic agenda was groundbreaking, even if cast in the shadow of Vietnam.