I like Duncan Hunter but remain skeptical on any US Representative being the best candidate.
There is a big difference between the functions of someone representing constituents and the executive aspects of governing. A great representative may not be the best person to govern. A representative may win in a district election but has not proven himself to be able to win on a state wide basis, which limits their campaign experience.
I have not checked each past president but none went from the US House to the presidency that I know of. Since FDR, only two (Clinton and Truman) have not had military experience (which Hunter has) and each president since FDR has experience as either being a VP or past state governor.
IF Hillary wins in 2008, she would be the second senator to accomplish that feat since before FDR, JFK being the first.
Otherwise, I perfer to wait and watch what's going on now.
However, I will remind you of another former President who served only ONE term in the US Congress and 2 terms as a State Representative before becoming one of the great US Presidents of all time. This despite having NO "executive experience". -
-
-
Abraham Lincoln.
Garfield went from the House to the Presidency. It may be voted in a district, but being a Congressman and having been the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, etc. has put him into national policy. He has plenty of experience and I think it's ridiculous. Lincoln was also only a Congressman.
I agree, except Ford went from Congressman to VP after Agnew quit, and then became President after Nixon resigned. He pardoned Nixon and the voters dumped him for the very worst President ever.
Morgan, you are really mistaken about Truman having no military experience. He served in WWI as an artilleryman.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/military.htm
which makes Clinton even more of an anomalie.