Posted on 06/25/2011 12:05:20 PM PDT by unseen1
Does anyone ever wonder why the last member of the House of Representatives elected to POTUS was from 1880? It is a simple matter of Executive experience. Congress critters have for all practical purposes ZERO executive experience. The last member of the House elected to POTUS was Garfield in 1880. He had served 18 years in the house was a Brigadier General during the Civil war and President of Hiram College. With all of this, Garfield only won the nomination on the 36th vote at the convention and won the POTUS with less than 10,000 votes to spare. He was shot and killed in 1881. His administration up until then was one of contention with the Senate and a move to increase federal power.
Now why would the citizens of the land refuse to vote for a House member for the last 131 years? For the simple reason that they have no executive experience. A House member can have a maximum of 18 staff with an additional 4 part time members. That is it. A total of 18 staff. They are given a total allowance from $1,262,065 to $1,600,539.
So a House member is GIVEN between 1.2million and $1.6million for staff wages, office expenses and office mail. They are limited to running an office of 18 people. That's it 18 people and max $1.6 million in expenses. They never have to worry where the money is coming from, worry about meeting payroll, worry about expansion, downsizing, benefits, etc. They don't have to deal with intradepartmental arguments for limited resources, they don't need to concern themselves with power plays or budgeting. In short they are not required to make any executive decisions as a House member.
The responsibilities of a House member in other words do not concern executive decisions at any level. Thus, no House member has been elected since 1880. Further, I highly doubt with all the issues facing this country that require major executive decisions to rectify our problems, that the USA will suddenly want to elect a person that has no skill set in making those types of decisions.
IKE was the supreme allied commander during WW2. that is a pretty good executive experience. Moving and being responsible for millions of men, feeding them, transporting them, drawing up battle plans etc. Ike’s negatives if any was that as General he never had to learn the politcal skills.
I disagree that an anyone accomplished in their field that talks good can be president. the POTUS requires a certain skill set. Not everyone can do it. in fac tthe bigger it gets the less people that can do it which is a good argument to reduce the power and scope of the office.
You're preaching to the choir, Paradox!
No one here at Free Republic has anything but disdain for O's ideas and contempt for the man himself.
People post articles like this one because they want to bandy about and polish arguments which can be used with people who aren't die-hard Conservatives like ourselves.
In the case of O, I can't start a discussion with my dyed-in-the-wool liberal family member or coworker by labelling O's ideas "sucky." I have to be more indirect and subtle, and suggest that he merely lacked experience. Such a premise won't immediately close down all channels of communication.
Once they've allowed themselves to be convinced that, hey, O really did possess zero executive experience before his nomination is it possible to innocently inquire: "I wonder why the Democratic Party would nominate someone with such weak creditentials? Could it perhaps be because of his race?
Regards,
I am totally with you. Actually, I'll start my conversations about Obama sometimes with "you know, I kinda feel sorry for the guy..." (while holding back my lunch)..
Then I'll go on about the guy being in over his head, how even he had said originally that he did not have enough experience to be President, yadda yadda...
If Obama had the experience of running things (especially in the private sector) would he still think as he does?
If he were more of known quantity with an actual managerial track record and he still thought as he does would he have gotten as far as the White House?
If he did have managerial experience and didn't think as he does would he really be more popular here?
Bachmann would be a good kingmaker?
In the best of all possible worlds, this is true. When comparing a candidate to an evil, anti-American druggie who hates Jews, productive people, freedom, and all whites (including half of himself), executive experience becomes less important. Bachmann is currently my third choice, behind Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, but she would be both a good candidate and a good president, which is a huge step up from Romney and from the usurper occupying our White House.
Obama is a social experiment run amok. He’s the affirmative action President, and we all know what that means. Of all the candidates in the last presidential election, only Sarah Palin had excutive experience and a record of accomplishment.
Seriously, where do you people get this crap from?
Duncan Hunter could have been viable. It had NOTHING to do with his lack of executive experience and EVERYTHING to do with the clear fact that most Congressmen in the House usually don’t have the name stature or recognition required to mount a National Campaign. Those that do get National Recognition is when negative things come out about them (Weiner, Foley, Jefferson). Hunter had the challenge of trying to introduce himself to members outside his district in CA and only a short time to do so, getting no help from the media.
Michele Bachmann, however, has acquired fame and recognition that reasonates far beyond MN(6) due to her actions and involvement in the Tea Party movement. Her task is NOT as difficult as was Hunter’s or even Tom Tancredo’s.
To say otherwise is both disingenuous and dishonest.
Also, Elmer Fudd could run the Federal Government just fine. It isn’t rocket science. Just because Obama’s managed to muck it up doesn’t change that fact. As President, people look to you to make decisions that protect the Country and its National interests, promote and sign legislation that makes our country more prosperous, and oppose and veto legislation that makes it less so, while appointing judicial stewards who will interpret the Constitution in its original intent. There’s nothing difficult about that.
yeah keep believeing that. Let’s see how much attention Bachman gets next week with Palin in IA
Outstanding! My thoughts exactly. This country is WAY too fragile for more presidential on the job training.
Our system wasn't designed to have this much power vested in the Federal level. It's become that, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.