Last president to have only been a Senator....

[Altec]

The last president to have only been a member of Congress before being elected was JFK (and he had 13 years of experience). The next president will have only been a senator.

Is this a good or a bad thing?

[DJ13]

1. "Is this a good or a bad thing?"

Well weve tried governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush) and those didnt work too well for us, so why not?

[Altec]

6. Reagan and Clinton

were bad Presidents?

[Xipe Totec]

8. Governors n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

10. AFAIC Yes

[lurky]

11. Reagan: Bad president.

And no, he did not defeat communism. :eyes:

Clinton: Overall a disappointment for most progressives.

[Altec]

13. It depends what you're looking for in a president

In terms of keeping our country safe, giving us a good image around the world, and keeping us prosperous I would say that Reagan and Clinton were both good presidents.

[Alexander]

16. If those are your criteria, Reagan fails.

"In terms of keeping our country safe"

The bombing of the barracks in Beirut comes to mind. We lost a lot of Marines.

"giving us a good image around the world"

Iran-Contra and Reagan trying to install puppet dictatorships in Central America did not help our image around the world.

"keeping us prosperous"

There were recessions and the crash of 1987 on Reagan's watch. He cut income taxes (helping the rich) and raised payroll taxes (hurting the poor). So he didn't "keep us prosperous".

[Alexander]

14. Reagan was bad, Clinton was okay.

I think Clinton's presidency looks really good after 8 years of Bush, but even he wasn't one of the best.

[Altec]

15. Was JFK one of the best??

Or do we give him more credit than he deserves because of his untimely death?

[Alexander]

19. He was very good, and likely would've been better had he not died.

Keep in mind that he was planning to withdraw troops from Vietnam, dismantle the CIA, put a man on the moon and pass the Civil Rights Act shortly before he was killed.

Even before that, he went against his advisers and refused to bomb Cuba during the Missile Crisis. By doing so he essentially prevented World War III.

IMO those are some of the reasons why he was killed.

[rasputin1952]

22. Reagan was a poor example of a president...all theatrics, zero

substance.

Here are two examples of he screwed up, the first one big time.

After speeches of "strength and righteousness", he pulled the Marines out of Beirut following the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks. From a Middle Eastern POV, this showed that reagan was all rhetoric, no substance. From that point on, we were targets for an attack, we were seen as weak in the eyes of those who would eventually come up with two WTC attacks. One of the first things one must understand, is the thought processes of anyone perceived as an enemy. While I am no fan of bushI, I give him credit for the way GWI was executed. He helped form a coalition of forces, and when Hussein would not leave Kuwait, he got a green light from the international community to proceed. I even think that forces being reigned in after destroying the Iraqi ability to fight was a good strategic move. A bad strategic move, was to allow Hussein to remain in power, there were ways to deal with that, but nothing was done.

The second thing about Reagan involved Iran-Contra. If he knew nothing of it, as he claimed, he was incompetent. By the time of Iran-Contra, Alzheimer's was progressing. Reagan's physicians had to know this, (or they were incompetent), and he should have stepped down. By the time he left office, his mental facilities had been affected to a discernible degree, even to the layman. In essence, because of the progression of the disease, or simple incompetence, Iran-Contra had the effect of diminishing our stature to many of our allies. This would prove to a burden in future discussions.

Ronald Reagan was an actor, hand him a script and he'd run with it. His entire adult life came out of a "Dream Factory", to him, illusion was reality. He had many years to hone his delivery, but when it came down to brass tacks, there was nothing there. Toward the end of his presidency, he had people believing he flew bombers over Europe, (he was a Captain in the Army, but never left Hollywood, if you want some fun, look up some of his US Army Signal Corps training films, there was one on VD that's a howl!). He was in a flick where he was a bomber pilot, but he took it further and actually began to think he was over Europe. In fact, the whole, "touched the face of God" speech was about a story written years before...but he played it like he was watching a B-17 go down over Berlin.

I won't even go into "Reaganomics", people are still going hungry and homeless because of his incredibly stupid aspects of the economy.

[Altec]

24. Would Obama be the same thing?

All speeches, theatrics, etc..

[rasputin1952]

26. I don't think so...We have yet to see any real discussion about

policies...both candidates at this point have done far more posturing than anything else.

Thing about Reagan was, he was a trained actor...extremely easy for him to fool people who wanted to be fooled. Obama, I don't know, he appears sincere, but a lot of that is coaching, (as with all politico's), so is Clinton's approach.

To be perfectly honest, I have yet to back either of them to any great degree, as I have so little to go by at this point. I do know one thing though...we cannot afford another GOP dominated WH and Congress...:scared:

[TankLV]

23. raygun was - Cliinton was a GOOD president...I miss Bill...

we should be so lucky to have Bill back...

our worst nightmare would be another ray-gun asshole...

[Eric J in MN]

George H. W. Bush had experience as VP and

...CIA Director, but he wasn't a good president.

[sabbat hunter]

7. Clinton

was a good president.

As was FDR, and he was "only" a Governor.

[Alexander]

12. FDR was also Assistant Navy Secretary and the 1920 VP nominee.

[DJ13]

18. Clinton was no progressive

NAFTA, GOP inspired welfare reform, telecom deregulation, finance industry deregulation, MFN status for China.....and thats the abbreviated list.

My comments that included Clinton were regarding traditional Democratic ideals, none of which Bill Clinton supported in his two terms.

Clinton was no FDR.

And Carter, while a real progressive (for his time) was inept as President and didnt serve the country well as a result.

[NoPasaran]

21. FDR had also been Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 1913-1920

This was a period of naval expansion, an arms race with Japan, and of course the US participation in the First World War.

[rwheeler31]

2. only?

[FrenchieCat]

3. Jfk?

Good omen for Obama, IMO.

[saltpoint]

4. No matter which candidate you support now, if you are in the least homesick

for John F. Kennedy, by god I'll buy you a beer.

[frogcycle]

5. it's not even a thing

[Altec]

9. Yes it is

We usually support governors or vice presidents. If not that, then maybe someone from the army. I think that four decades of no one directly from the senate as a president is a big deal, considering that this election will definitely have been just a senator.

[frogcycle]

17. it is an historical fact

just a statement of what is. not a "thing"

the planets will keep orbiting even if we elect a drunken coke-snorting baseball team owner or a mediocre actor

[Altec]

20. Obviously...

but isn't a big deal that the American people have abandoned the traditional Vice President and/or Governor for president?

[frogcycle]

25. what tradition?

40 years is not a "tradition"

homogeneity is not natural. things occur in clumps. You observe a happenstance, not a "tradition"

yes, we have elected a lot of governors president. You name a few; others are Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge...

but Truman was a senator, Lincoln a congressman...

don't overanalyze

[Altec]

27. I said

"Since Lincoln." Also, Truman was a Vice President before he was president as well. The fact is we vote for governors, we have for a long time, so it's fair to say it's a big deal.