• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re Warren: She was seen as the favorite, and when that happens everybody gangs up on you. it's the way the game is played.
 
acbytesla said:
Maybe, maybe not. I think Pete's sexuality may be the only thing keeping him from being President. But I also never imagined the nation electing a man of color or a prolific inveterate liar.
Click to expand...

Read my lips, I am not a crook, and I did not have sexual relations with that woman!

Surely you jest!
 
angrysoba said:
Read my lips, I am not a crook, and I did not have sexual relations with that woman!

Surely you jest!
Click to expand...

Certainly both Nixon and Clinton lied from time to time as we all do. But Trump lies more than any person I've ever encountered and that is not a hyperbolic exaggeration.
 
SezMe said:
George Herbert Walker Bush, AKA Bush I. I didn't like his politics but thought he was well qualified to handle the job. I might have been somewhat optimistic in that regard.

Hillary Rodham Clinton. No matter what you think about her, she was extremely well qualified. If she could handle Slick Willie, the GOP would have been duck soup. :)
Click to expand...

I hate to remind you, but Hillary was never president.

The point is that POTUS will always have more responsibilities than any other job you've ever had, so that anyone can always say that you were not prepared. Mayor of a city is certainly better than game show host.

Skeptic Ginger said:
You will notice round and round in that post refers to opinion vs opinion. The merry-go-round isn't going anywhere. Are you playing another question game? Oh goody, let's see, I'm looking, I'm looking. If only you would have just repeated it.
Oh, there is it, "what president had"?

Was my answer too abstract? People with experience in Congress and as Governors have the experience I refer to. Mayors don't.

You guys are too touchy. It was the same way with Bernie. Dare to say what you find wrong or inadequate and the replies get snarky.
Click to expand...

Irony!

People with experience in Congress and as Governors have the experience I refer to. Mayors don't.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Did you think Obama's lack of experience hurt his ability to accomplish more? Think it hurt him dealing with McConnell?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah right, that's all it is. :rolleyes:

The dude was a Mayor, it's not even a state office.

Like it or not, he doesn't have the experience a POTUS needs.

I won't have any trouble voting for him if he wins the Primary. But he's not my first choice.
Click to expand...
Valid point. But bear in mind, an executive, even a mayor, has "the buck stops here" responsibilities that legislators do not. Hell, anyone can be a senator. You can roll out of bed on a daily basis and not do a damn thing except register party line votes, and nobody will even notice. The buck doesn't stop on your desk or anywhere near it.

There are many competent people in the world who are not competent executives.
 
Belz... said:
I hate to remind you, but Hillary was never president.

The point is that POTUS will always have more responsibilities than any other job you've ever had, so that anyone can always say that you were not prepared. Mayor of a city is certainly better than game show host.



Irony!



Why not?



No.
Click to expand...

I think it would be a fair point to say that someone like Lyndon B Johnson had a lot of useful transferable experience for being the president. Whereas Kennedy's legislation got stalled in Congress, LBJ knew people in the Senate very well and was able to wheel and deal to get Kennedy's legislation and his own through. In that sense his experience was very valuable. Kennedy and Obama's relative lack of experience made it much harder for them to deal with the legislative branch. Presumably vice-presidents and incumbent presidents have quite a bit more of an insight into the executive branch than those who have not had the experience as well, so I think it is fair to say someone like Pete Buttigieg is very inexperienced compared to someone like LBJ.

Of course, even then, LBJ was still unable to deal with the Vietnam War in ways that his experience helped him with.
 
angrysoba said:
I think it would be a fair point to say that someone like Lyndon B Johnson had a lot of useful transferable experience for being the president. Whereas Kennedy's legislation got stalled in Congress, LBJ knew people in the Senate very well and was able to wheel and deal to get Kennedy's legislation and his own through. In that sense his experience was very valuable. Kennedy and Obama's relative lack of experience made it much harder for them to deal with the legislative branch. Presumably vice-presidents and incumbent presidents have quite a bit more of an insight into the executive branch than those who have not had the experience as well, so I think it is fair to say someone like Pete Buttigieg is very inexperienced compared to someone like LBJ.

Of course, even then, LBJ was still unable to deal with the Vietnam War in ways that his experience helped him with.
Click to expand...

That's all true but my question was about the experience of a mayor.
 
varwoche said:
Valid point. But bear in mind, an executive, even a mayor, has "the buck stops here" responsibilities that legislators do not. Hell, anyone can be a senator. You can roll out of bed on a daily basis and not do a damn thing except register party line votes, and nobody will even notice. The buck doesn't stop on your desk or anywhere near it.

There are many competent people in the world who are not competent executives.
Click to expand...

In a system where responsibility for key things is widely dispersed, "the buck stops here" is really more of a myth than anything. I mean, a lot of things will happen which really was beyond the executive's control.

There are some executive cultures and communities which are far better or worse than others, too.

In my city, Memphis, arguably the most messed up city in the country, it's the corporate community leadership (and it's interactions and relationships with with the mayor, city council, and county commission) that's keeping things messed up, probably by accident, but the people at the top are immune to input or even the slightest hint of constructive criticism.

Replacing the ones in government with better people is fantastically difficult, too, for reasons it would take an essay to explain in detail. But they've semi-rigged the system via one of those political consultant, communications, and strategy firms. We're finally starting to beat them, though. The reign of incompetence and looting the taxpayers and profiting off our suffering via property development schemes might be coming to an end. We'll see.

Anyway, it's easy to be an executive in gov who simply obeys corporations and local con artists with an eye for a quick buck. That's not difficult.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That's all true but my question was about the experience of a mayor.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, I would say you are dealing with different personnel. If you personally know the Senators and the Congressmen, and you know the interplay between them and the Executive Branch, then that is transferable experience that you would not get from being the mayor.
 
angrysoba said:
I think it would be a fair point to say that someone like Lyndon B Johnson had a lot of useful transferable experience for being the president. Whereas Kennedy's legislation got stalled in Congress, LBJ knew people in the Senate very well and was able to wheel and deal to get Kennedy's legislation and his own through. In that sense his experience was very valuable. Kennedy and Obama's relative lack of experience made it much harder for them to deal with the legislative branch. Presumably vice-presidents and incumbent presidents have quite a bit more of an insight into the executive branch than those who have not had the experience as well, so I think it is fair to say someone like Pete Buttigieg is very inexperienced compared to someone like LBJ.

Of course, even then, LBJ was still unable to deal with the Vietnam War in ways that his experience helped him with.
Click to expand...

That's all true. He was also a Southerner, a Texan and the former Senate Majority leader and man did he know how to wield his power. The stories about how LBJ ran the Senate are legendary. But he also derived his power as President because he had a super majority in both the House and the Senate and LBJ won the Presidency in a landslide. He had what I use to refer to as the martyrdom mandate. You can't dismiss that.
If you could ignore the Vietnam debacle, (I can't) I'd argue LBJ and FDR were the greatest and most effective Presidents in the 20th century.

Jimmy Carter was also a very effective legislator, but he blew it politically.

Obama was one of the least effective legislators. But it's hard to ignore that during his tenure the GOP wouldn't even support bills they normally would just to prevent anything that might put Obama in a favorable light.
 
varwoche said:
Valid point. But bear in mind, an executive, even a mayor, has "the buck stops here" responsibilities that legislators do not. Hell, anyone can be a senator. You can roll out of bed on a daily basis and not do a damn thing except register party line votes, and nobody will even notice. The buck doesn't stop on your desk or anywhere near it.

There are many competent people in the world who are not competent executives.
Click to expand...

I agree with this; executive experience is very useful, and a mayor (at least a mayor in a "strong mayor" system), has relevant experience.

Representatives only have a staff of about 15 people, while senators average about 35. South Bend has about 1000 municipal employees. That's a pretty significant difference in scale, although of course governors oversee much larger staffs which is probably why so many of our presidents were former state executives.
 
Distracted1 said:
Think of the backlash if he did not kiss his husband at the conclusion.

He would be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of dilemma.
Click to expand...

We didn't mention that the spouse gets a primetime speech at the convention. Better or worse than a kiss?
 
I am cyincial enough to think the real objection to the Mayor is not that he was a Mayor, but that he is not far enough to the left for the Progs.
 
dudalb said:
I am cyincial enough to think the real objection to the Mayor is not that he was a Mayor, but that he is not far enough to the left for the Progs.
Click to expand...

It's certainly an unusual situation; Giuliani was probably here at some point in 2007, but aside from him I can't remember the last time a mayor was really in the top rank of candidates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom