usvi-on-line
Reaching out to any forum friends who live near Capitol Hill
I am not sure that you can equate the lack of executive experience with a bad presidency.--however, if you must grasp at straws, at least do it in an informed manner.SJfromNJ wrote:The only thing I find historic about our president select is the fact that a guy, who has not run any type of government, state, county, town, or PTA, got elected to the highest elected position on earth. This is a tribute to something, I just don’t know what.
frankly, i wish you and soxfan would just let the guy develop a record in the presidency before slamming him.
anyway, this is a quote (below)
The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey asked historians whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic, social and economic issues. The table below shows that the two groups had only small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. Both groups agreed on the composition of nine of the top ten Presidents
Rankings by Liberals and Conservatives
Rank Liberals (n=190) Conservatives (n=50)
1 Lincoln Lincoln
2 Franklin Roosevelt Washington
3 Washington Franklin Roosevelt
4 Jefferson Jefferson
5 Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt
6 Wilson Jackson
7 Jackson Truman
8 Truman Wilson
9 LB Johnson Eisenhower
10 John Adams John Adams
The number one spot by Libs and Cons was Lincoln. Lincoln had no executive experience upon assuming the presidency. His political experience being in the state legislature
Number 2 on the conservative list and number 3 on the liberal list was Washington. He had no executive experience prior to assuming the presidency. His political experience being in local legislative and judicial positions.
Number 2 on the liberal list and number 3 on the conservative list is FDR. He had no executive experience before assuming the presidency. His experience was in state legislature.
Number 4 on both lists is Thomas Jefferson. His only executive experience was as governor of Virginia for 2 years.
Number 5 on both lists is Theodore Roosevelt. His only executive experience was 2 years as governor of New York.
Number 6 on the conservative list and 7 on the liberal list is Andrew Jackson. He had no executive experience prior to becoming president. His experience was in federal legislature.
Number 6 on the liberal list and 8 on the conservative list was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had 2 years experience as governor of New Jersey.
Number 7 on the conservative list and 8 on the liberal list is Truman. Truman had no executive experience prior to assuming the presidency.
number 9 on the liberal list is LBJ. LBJ had no executive experience prior to assuming the presidency. All in federal legislative branch.
number 9 on the conservative list is Eisenhower. Eisenhower had zero executive experience prior to assuming the presidency.
Number 10 on both lists is John Adams. John Adams had no executive experience before becoming president.
There you have it. The top 11 presidents with a sum total of 6 years executive experience.
I am CERTAINLY sure you can come up with some gobblety gook to counter this as spin is , well spin....but maybe Pete can just stop the car.......i for one would be happy to let you walk the rest of the way.
< leaving on the 22nd of march...but too lame to figure out the ticker thing again!>
Loria - Anyone who is unable to see the historical significance of the first african american president in US history, something many of us surely never thought we would see in our lifetime, is really not someone with whom you can have a productive political discussion.
I have some fairly conservative friends (believe it or not!), and though they did not vote for Obama they clearly see the historical significance of the moment.
There is some deeper angst here that goes beyond the fact that President-Elect Obama may lack executive experience. Therefore, your well put information will fall on deaf ears.
They want a fight plan and simple. Facts are beside the point. We've been down that road.
Find solace that he comes into office with unbelievable goodwill (83% approval of his transition) and 71% believe he has a strong mandate to move forward.
I have some fairly conservative friends (believe it or not!), and though they did not vote for Obama they clearly see the historical significance of the moment.
There is some deeper angst here that goes beyond the fact that President-Elect Obama may lack executive experience. Therefore, your well put information will fall on deaf ears.
They want a fight plan and simple. Facts are beside the point. We've been down that road.
Find solace that he comes into office with unbelievable goodwill (83% approval of his transition) and 71% believe he has a strong mandate to move forward.
How anyone can take an innocent question about someone needing a place to stay in the District for their job on Inauguration Day and turn it into a hate-filled politial rant is completely out of my realm of comprehension.
Congratulations, Sandy, on having the opportunity to cover history. I know the next few days will be rough, but it will be worth it. Take some great pictures.
Congratulations, Sandy, on having the opportunity to cover history. I know the next few days will be rough, but it will be worth it. Take some great pictures.
Seriously, is anyone going to apologize to Soxfan?? First, he got called racist for someone else's comments and then he got called out for calling someone a racist for comments that weren't his. ---yet I haven't seen anyone say anything about their mistakes.
What really bothers me . . . and I am not even sure if this is applicable to anyone who has posted in this thread . . . is when President Bush was in office it was OK to call him ridiculous names and to criticize every decision he has ever made (even when the house democrats made the same decision, a conveniently forgotten fact) . . . at any rate . . . these are the same people now saying CAN'T WE ALL COME TOGETHER.
I am going to support Obama but certainly not because any of Obama's supporters think I should. No, I will support Obama because I feel it is the right thing to do. It has always been the right thing to do--something I have alway understood and NOT something I only understand when my party is in office. Our President always deserves our respect.
Every time I hear; "this is a time to come together" I want to scream . . . IT ALWAYS WAS THE TIME!! I got that . . . you didn't.
In time you will see that Bush was a great President; but will his critics ever admit it or will they continue to slant it?
My problem has nothing to do with either President and everything to do with the unequal reactions to them. The rules change. It is frustratingly ridiculous.
Gina
What really bothers me . . . and I am not even sure if this is applicable to anyone who has posted in this thread . . . is when President Bush was in office it was OK to call him ridiculous names and to criticize every decision he has ever made (even when the house democrats made the same decision, a conveniently forgotten fact) . . . at any rate . . . these are the same people now saying CAN'T WE ALL COME TOGETHER.
I am going to support Obama but certainly not because any of Obama's supporters think I should. No, I will support Obama because I feel it is the right thing to do. It has always been the right thing to do--something I have alway understood and NOT something I only understand when my party is in office. Our President always deserves our respect.
Every time I hear; "this is a time to come together" I want to scream . . . IT ALWAYS WAS THE TIME!! I got that . . . you didn't.
In time you will see that Bush was a great President; but will his critics ever admit it or will they continue to slant it?
My problem has nothing to do with either President and everything to do with the unequal reactions to them. The rules change. It is frustratingly ridiculous.
Gina
-
Pete (Mr. Marcia)
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:48 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
It's too bad life can't be more like hockey. In hockey, the teams beat the crap out of each other for a seven game series. But, when it's all done, they shake hands at center ice. I always thought that was cool.Pia wrote:Unbelievable that there are a few that still won't or can't be gracious.
Pia
Wisconsin, smell the dairy air
The irony is that for the last years there hasn't been any hand shaking, yet the same people who were unwilling to shake hands for the last 8 years, want to shake hands now. Hypocritical, isn't it.
Again, I like Obama. It is the hypocrisy of his supporters that gets my blood boiling. In a way, I am not proud of getting involved in this thread. I am excited about Obama even though I didn't vote for him. I voted for policies not personality. I just can't stand it that the same people who have been so critical and disrespectful of Bush are the same people who are now saying--get over it--this is historical--it is time to unite--be gracious--etc. But, now isn't the time because it has always been the time. Don't tell me what time it is. I already knew the time. It is the people who anti-Bush people that don't understand what time it is.
My question is would the same people who are saying be gracious it is time to reunited be saying that if McCain were the President-elect? I doubt it.
Edited to say: It probably looks like my comments are intended to be personal, they're not. I have no idea if any, none, or all, of you have been critical of Bush. It has been hard to listen as people called our president an idiot, etc. It feels like salt is being thrown in my wounds when suddenly it is inappropriate and no one is citing the first amendment as an excuse for their disrespect. None of this is specific to anyone here. I am not sure what it is that I am hoping to gain or what it is that I wish you would say so that I can celebrate our 44th president without resentment toward his supporters. And don't even get me started on celebrities . . . oy.
Gina
Again, I like Obama. It is the hypocrisy of his supporters that gets my blood boiling. In a way, I am not proud of getting involved in this thread. I am excited about Obama even though I didn't vote for him. I voted for policies not personality. I just can't stand it that the same people who have been so critical and disrespectful of Bush are the same people who are now saying--get over it--this is historical--it is time to unite--be gracious--etc. But, now isn't the time because it has always been the time. Don't tell me what time it is. I already knew the time. It is the people who anti-Bush people that don't understand what time it is.
My question is would the same people who are saying be gracious it is time to reunited be saying that if McCain were the President-elect? I doubt it.
Edited to say: It probably looks like my comments are intended to be personal, they're not. I have no idea if any, none, or all, of you have been critical of Bush. It has been hard to listen as people called our president an idiot, etc. It feels like salt is being thrown in my wounds when suddenly it is inappropriate and no one is citing the first amendment as an excuse for their disrespect. None of this is specific to anyone here. I am not sure what it is that I am hoping to gain or what it is that I wish you would say so that I can celebrate our 44th president without resentment toward his supporters. And don't even get me started on celebrities . . . oy.
Gina
I wasn't an Obama supporter. I gave lots of money to Hillary Clinton. That being said, I wasn't a huge supporter of President Bush. Was I critical of him? Yes, I've been critical of all three of them.
As a political scientist, I believe it is very dangerous when the people do not feel comfortable enough to dissent, especially in a Democratic nation.
While I believe people have the right to express their opinions, I also believe the following two things:
1. This was not the appropriate thread in which to do that. However, I suspect due to the nature of the political banter this board took over the past several months, people thought they could fly under the radar by getting their jabs in here.
2. Regardless of your political ideology, you cannot help but recognize that this is a truly historic time for our nation.
As a political scientist, I believe it is very dangerous when the people do not feel comfortable enough to dissent, especially in a Democratic nation.
While I believe people have the right to express their opinions, I also believe the following two things:
1. This was not the appropriate thread in which to do that. However, I suspect due to the nature of the political banter this board took over the past several months, people thought they could fly under the radar by getting their jabs in here.
2. Regardless of your political ideology, you cannot help but recognize that this is a truly historic time for our nation.
Lulu: I agree with what you are saying. My frustration isn't with the criticism of Bush but the bias of the media and supporters. Obama keeps getting a pass for the same things Bush got heat.
An example:
In 2005 the media complained about the money being spent on Bush's inauguration. Now the 44th president is getting a pass. I have heard the arguments about the cost of this inauguration. They say the money for Obama's inauguration comes from donations--but Bush used donations for his inauguration also. They also try to defend the cost by saying that this is a celebration . . . that implies that the inauguration of Bush wasn't a celebration and that shows their arrogance. They sure aren't saying anything about how critical they were of Bush in 2005 even though he spend less than 1/3 of what is being spent on Obama's inauguration.
I am sure the media has their frankincense and Mur for the chosen one. Their bias', their free passes to Obama, their lynching of Palin, their undue criticism of Bush has all grown old.
Gina
An example:
In 2005 the media complained about the money being spent on Bush's inauguration. Now the 44th president is getting a pass. I have heard the arguments about the cost of this inauguration. They say the money for Obama's inauguration comes from donations--but Bush used donations for his inauguration also. They also try to defend the cost by saying that this is a celebration . . . that implies that the inauguration of Bush wasn't a celebration and that shows their arrogance. They sure aren't saying anything about how critical they were of Bush in 2005 even though he spend less than 1/3 of what is being spent on Obama's inauguration.
I am sure the media has their frankincense and Mur for the chosen one. Their bias', their free passes to Obama, their lynching of Palin, their undue criticism of Bush has all grown old.
Gina
-
Marcia (Mrs. Pete)
- Posts: 1576
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:40 pm
- Location: Madison Area, Wisconsin
-
California Girl
I believe this thread was started by DC Photo to find a place to crash the night before the inaguration. How did it become what it is? It's absolutely disgraceful for anyone, conservative OR liberal to hijack this thread this way. I wasn't going to post again, but I have to register my disgust for the disrespectful way everyone has had to get their jabs in ... once again!
guilty as charged CG--and i posted the same query on WEDNESDAY (on the 2nd page of this) and still ended up getting drawn in...my bad. I hope that DCphoto found a good place to hang her hat for a bitCalifornia Girl wrote:I believe this thread was started by DC Photo to find a place to crash the night before the inaguration. How did it become what it is? It's absolutely disgraceful for anyone, conservative OR liberal to hijack this thread this way. I wasn't going to post again, but I have to register my disgust for the disrespectful way everyone has had to get their jabs in ... once again!
< leaving on the 22nd of march...but too lame to figure out the ticker thing again!>