CDZ Will You Take the Pledge?

[jwoodie]

Let's face it: People with little or no Executive experience make lousy Presidents. You might cite Harry Truman as an exception, but he came into that office within an administration that had been running the country for over 12 years. Don't forget, Lyndon Johnson's foray into Viet Nam makes the Iraq War look like child's play.
Not that all Governors make good Presidents (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), but at least they come into office with some idea of how to assemble a Cabinet. In order to prevent another disastrous Presidency, I take the following pledge:

I will not vote for any Presidential candidate who has not previously been Governor of a State.

Anyone care to join me?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Research James Buchanan and Abe Lincoln on government experience.

 

[hortysir]

Stupid comment^

Research James Buchanan and Abe Lincoln on government experience.

Are calling either or both 'great Presidents'?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Presidents who were not former governors:

George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, John Q. Adams,Andrew Jackson, Wm. H. Harrison,Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce,James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, U. S. Grant, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Ben. Harrison, Wm. Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush and Barack Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stupid comment^

Research James Buchanan and Abe Lincoln on government experience.

Are calling either or both 'great Presidents'?

Your pledge was, "I will not vote for any Presidential candidate who has not previously been Governor of a State." It has nothing to do about greatness.

Washington was not a governor. Nor Eisenhower. But before you get excited about generals, remember that Grant was a general but not governor but only Bush was worse than he, and he was a governor but not a general, as was Harding a governor not a general and as bad as Grant or Bush.

 

[Dana7360]

Let's face it: People with little or no Executive experience make lousy Presidents. You might cite Harry Truman as an exception, but he came into that office within an administration that had been running the country for over 12 years. Don't forget, Lyndon Johnson's foray into Viet Nam makes the Iraq War look like child's play.
Not that all Governors make good Presidents (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), but at least they come into office with some idea of how to assemble a Cabinet. In order to prevent another disastrous Presidency, I take the following pledge:

I will not vote for any Presidential candidate who has not previously been Governor of a State.

Anyone care to join me?

I sure won't.

I'm going to vote for the best person for the job.

I won't discriminate against anyone.

 

[Agit8r]

Let's face it: People with little or no Executive experience make lousy Presidents.

Abraham Lincoln

 

[Agit8r]

James Madison was Secretary of State. Does that count as executive experience?

 

[Agit8r]

JFK was a capable president...

 

[JoeMoma]

No!

 

[Ellipsis]

Let's face it: People with little or no Executive experience make lousy Presidents. You might cite Harry Truman as an exception, but he came into that office within an administration that had been running the country for over 12 years. Don't forget, Lyndon Johnson's foray into Viet Nam makes the Iraq War look like child's play.
Not that all Governors make good Presidents (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), but at least they come into office with some idea of how to assemble a Cabinet. In order to prevent another disastrous Presidency, I take the following pledge:

I will not vote for any Presidential candidate who has not previously been Governor of a State.

Anyone care to join me?

How about nobody votes for anyone who wants to be president.

 

[jwoodie]

First, let's talk about Presidents in the modern era (FDR onward). Secondly, let's not confuse specific policies with administrative effectiveness. Third, let's acknowledge unique circumstances (i.e., WW2) where equivalent executive experience can be gained.

That being said, it is evident that those without such experience (e.g., JFK) who are newly elected to the Presidency face steeper learning curves than former Governors or even those with Vice Presidential experience.

Even Hillary would have greater experience than did our current President, who is the slowest learner yet. The question is whether we can afford another one.

 

[Agit8r]

...but at least they come into office with some idea of how to assemble a Cabinet.

Ashcroft? Rumsfeld? Your premise is debunked.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the 2012 election, the GOP candidate had not only gubernatorial experience but a broad variety of leadership experience in private business plus very visible and widely publicized experience and success in large scale problem solving. He had a track record for recruiting competent, capable, and appropriate people. There is every reason to believe he was running as a public servant and not for any personal advantage for himself.

He was running against an incumbant with the least amount of any kind of leadership experience or significant personal success of any kind and who turned in one of the most incompetent performances ever demonstrated by a U.S. President as well as being one of the most flagrant narcissists we have ever seen in public office.

We all know which of those two candidates was elected in 2012.

We're screwed.

 

[007]

I think presidents should be veterans.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure why a premium is placed on executive experience. The job is not close to being a CEO where you are the leader and the company follows you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not sure why a premium is placed on executive experience. The job is not close to being a CEO where you are the leader and the company follows you.

The Presidency is the administrative branch of government. The POTUS chooses or authorizes who heads all the divisions and branches of the government and is absolutely the CEO of the country charged with the responsibility to see that all functions of government are carried out competently, effectively, efficiently, and within the laws and initiatives passed by Congress. He also is the face on the 'company who inspires faith and confidence and sets the tone and standards of conduct. Some hands on experience with the skill sets necessary to do all that is invaluable.

 

[Politico]

I think presidents should be veterans.

Agreed.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure why a premium is placed on executive experience. The job is not close to being a CEO where you are the leader and the company follows you.

The Presidency is the administrative branch of government. The POTUS chooses or authorizes who heads all the divisions and branches of the government and is absolutely the CEO of the country charged with the responsibility to see that all functions of government are carried out competently, effectively, efficiently, and within the laws and initiatives passed by Congress. He also is the face on the 'company who inspires faith and confidence and sets the tone and standards of conduct. Some hands on experience with the skill sets necessary to do all that is invaluable.

Okay...so person X is elected in November of 2016. She will name her cabinet by January 2017. According to you this invaluable skillset is sparingly used again. Hardly the most important of any skills is picking folks to run the "divisions and branches" (they are called Departments BTW).

As for inspiring faith and confidence, a former coke user who was AWOL during 'nam and says "Bring it on" while we're invading nations that didn't attack us is hardly admirable traits despite any "executive experience" you gain during the 40 days you have to be a governor of Texas every 2 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not sure why a premium is placed on executive experience. The job is not close to being a CEO where you are the leader and the company follows you.

The Presidency is the administrative branch of government. The POTUS chooses or authorizes who heads all the divisions and branches of the government and is absolutely the CEO of the country charged with the responsibility to see that all functions of government are carried out competently, effectively, efficiently, and within the laws and initiatives passed by Congress. He also is the face on the 'company who inspires faith and confidence and sets the tone and standards of conduct. Some hands on experience with the skill sets necessary to do all that is invaluable.

Okay...so person X is elected in November of 2016. She will name her cabinet by January 2017. According to you this invaluable skillset is sparingly used again. Hardly the most important of any skills is picking folks to run the "divisions and branches" (they are called Departments BTW).

As for inspiring faith and confidence, a former coke user who was AWOL during 'nam and says "Bring it on" while we're invading nations that didn't attack us is hardly admirable traits despite any "executive experience" you gain during the 40 days you have to be a governor of Texas every 2 years.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when a presumed leftist uses whatever forum is offered to 'blame Bush' or 'bash Bush' yet again. Or deflects from the topic by yet another tiresome diversion into semantics. But oh well.

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.