[Prokopton]

There is a reason for that. The House does not train presidents

From the looks of the presidents we have had, whatever criteria we have been using for the proper "training" to be president has not been working. Let's not do the same thing over and over again with the dismal results we have seen. It's time to break the mold and get some real people as candidates.

[JPG]

Sorry, good intentions lead to you know where. Training + American values are what we need. I'd think it would be cool to be an air traffic controller...but if I showed up today to sit in front of a scope, you wouldn't want to be on a plane in my sector because I wouldn't know what the hell I was doing. Executive experience DOES count and MB doesn't have any.

[rob777]

"From the looks of the presidents we have had, whatever criteria we have been using for the proper "training" to be president has not been working."


Executive experience is valuable, but so is extensive knowledge of national issues. A Governor will obviously have more of the former, but a Congressman or Senator will more often have more of the latter. It is a tradeoff.

[hellbender]

Abraham Lincoln had no executive experience. His only Federal experience was in the House, and he was not even an incumbent there when he was elected President.

Past precedents are irrelevant today. We have our first Marxist President, and the Constitution is in shreds. All that really matters is whether the candidate is dedicated to Constitutional principles of limited govt.

Professional politicians have betrayed this country. G.W. Bush, Jimmah Carter, and Rudy Giuliani all had "executive experience." Where did that get us?