FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

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.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AN ENTRY-LEVEL POSITION

Politics/Elections Front Page Opinion Keywords: THIRD PARTY
Source: Various
Published: September 27, 2000 Author: L.N. Smithee
Posted on 09/27/2000 18:59:48 PDT by L.N. Smithee

ATTENTION: According to history, Pat can't win. Ralph can't win. Harry can't win. Howard can't win.

Heck, Perot couldn't have won.

However, Colin Powell might someday. So might Jesse Ventura. Why?

Because Jesse Ventura, as opposed to all the third party candidates since John Anderson, has legislative experience as a city mayor and the governor of a state. Because Colin Powell, like Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant, who didn't have legislative experience, had under their belts military victories that elevated them to a plateau higher than that of "politician."

These are the facts: Since little-remembered Zachary Taylor (the 12th President) was inaugurated in 1849, only one man has been elected President without having won either a war or an election. That man was Herbert Hoover, who had eight years of experience in the Executive branch as Secretary of Commerce for Presidents Harding and Coolidge (both of them being single-termers).

Hoover, like Perot, was a phenomenally successful businessman -- he was born an orphan but eventually was a Stanford grad, and became a millionaire in the days before a million dollars was insignificant enough to give away every day. He didn't accept a salary as President. Some might say he was worth every penny that the American people paid him. History has not been kind to Hoover, whose ability to amass a personal fortune did nothing to halt a depression that is on the tips of everyone's lips each time there is a downturn in the American economy.

Buchanan, Browne, Nader, and Phillips each have elements to their public platforms that make good sense. But they will NOT be elected to the highest office in the land (and arguably, the world) without doing things the way that their forerunners have. They don't have a core constituency, they don't have a track record, and they don't have the desire and/or courage to actually work from within the system before saying they should be reinventing it.

You get the feeling that the candidates who run ONLY for President really know that they can't possibly win, but that they want their ideas to be promoted. I say, if the ideas are so good, let's put them into practice on a local level and show the rest of the country the way it can work. Or do they fear that they wouldn't be able to persuade people to change without the near-absolute power that the Presidency provides?

The idea that some "outsider" can ride into D.C. on a white stallion and clean up government single-handed is as imaginary as the movies that had that sort of thing happening in Old West villages. The Federal Government is broken for sure, but if we get to the point where a sign is posted on the gate to the White House reading "President Wanted -- No Experience Necessary", the game will have been over for a long while.


An A-Bert type vanity to counteract the dozens that he and those of his ilk create.

1 Posted on 09/27/2000 18:59:48 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

"The Federal Government is broken for sure, but if we get to the point where a sign is posted on the gate to the White House reading "President Wanted -- No Experience Necessary", the game will have been over for a long while."

Hurrah! For a pointed and concise essay, without a shred of vanity.

I would remind some among us that even Harold Stassen was a two-term governor...before he became a joke.

2 Posted on 09/27/2000 19:07:02 PDT by okie01
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Here Here! Excellent and well articulated.

I would also suggest that a prerequisite to holding office would be a thorough understand of how the government works and be knowledgable about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Knowing the left, these requests would be deemed "Unconstitutional" LOL!

3 Posted on 09/27/2000 19:20:42 PDT by AMERIKA
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Because Jesse Ventura, as opposed to all the third party candidates since John Anderson, has legislative experience as a city mayor and the governor of a state.

Well how about Jerry Springer? He was a big city mayor.

4 Posted on 09/27/2000 19:33:09 PDT by San Jacinto
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Would you like to explain your logic to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Hamilton? I don't think any of THEM were politicians, and they seem to have done alright for us.

If you read your history, the whole point was that REGULAR CITIZENS would take time from their lives, and perform the DUTY of running the country for a short time.

You sound like a bureaucrat.

5 Posted on 09/27/2000 19:36:10 PDT by Goldi-Lox
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

A little military trivia: Zachary Taylor won a battlefield commission. Of our Presidents, nineteen were former military officers. No former enlisted man has ever been elected President, and Algore will NOT be the first. Dubya, a former military officer, will be the 20th President with military officer credentials.

6 Posted on 09/27/2000 19:36:57 PDT by AngrySpud
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Bump

7 Posted on 09/27/2000 19:41:21 PDT by Naplm
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Good, factual analysis of the situation. Good work.

8 Posted on 09/27/2000 19:43:02 PDT by plain talk
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Herbert Hoover was a good president, for the most. Otherwise, you raise some good points.

9 Posted on 09/27/2000 19:43:34 PDT by ambrose
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Goldi-Lox

Would you like to explain your logic to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Hamilton? I don't think any of THEM were politicians, and they seem to have done alright for us.

Washington: Military General.

Jefferson: Was elected Vice President (back when the second place candidate took the position), and was elected governor of Virginia.

Madison: Was a member of Congress (House of Reps) for the state of Virginia for eight years.

Hamilton: Hmmm...President Hamilton...I can't seem to find anything about him...There must be something wrong with the reference guides I have.

10 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:07:01 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]


To: AngrySpud

A little military trivia: Zachary Taylor won a battlefield commission.

You know, you are dead right. Taylor was considered a hero of the Mexican-American war. In my research, I missed that fact.

In that case, Hoover stands alone.

11 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:11:03 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: San Jacinto

Well how about Jerry Springer? He was a big city mayor.

Remember, there were actually some Demos a couple of years ago who thought it wouldn't be a bad idea for Springer to get back into politics.

12 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:13:50 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Not a 'vanity', L.N.! Bring on more 'front page opinions!'

"You get the feeling that the candidates who run ONLY for President really know that they can't possibly win, but that they want their ideas to be promoted"

Nader has as much as said this. He said that by staying in the race, (altho he knew he had no chance,) he had a better chance to bring his message to more people than if he dropped out.

13 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:25:54 PDT by Exit148
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Goldi-Lox

George Washington,

Several moths ago Goldi Lox I pointed out to you that George Washington was elected to two terms to the Continental congress and served two terms in the Virgina House of Burgesses before he was elected president.

I even gave you a link to the Mount Vernon Web site and the Encarta On Line Encyclopidia where the truth was laid out in great detail. The others historical figure you just listed all had long periods of legistlative experience before they became president.

You made the excuse to me the last time I pointed out the untruth of your posts, that you were just repeating what you had been told.

What is your excuse this thime?... That your real name is Pinochio?

14 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:27:15 PDT by Common Tator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Your points are well made. It should also be said that not only couldn't those guys win, they didn't have a clue when it came to picking running mates. If you thought Stockdale and this Foster woman were lulus,did anyone catch Nader's running mate at the Nader rally televised by C-Span.

15 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:30:21 PDT by Biblebelter
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

An excellent antidote to the recent outbreaks.

Washington had also been an admirable colonel of militia, a successful business man and a robust member of the House of Burgesses even before he assumed command of the Continental Army, let alone before he became the first President. Aside from his important roles before the Revolution, Adams was a member of the Continental Congress (and had been sent to France as minister plenipotentiary), was later Minister to England, and ended up as a Vice President before he took the oath for the top spot. Jefferson? Well, he wrote some cool stuff and... Hamilton was an aide to Washington during the Revolution, was a delegate to the Convention in 1787, and became the first Secretary of the Treasury. Had he not stopped a lead ball at Weehawken, who knows?

Each of these men were fallible human beings, but they were all accomplished and had superb backgrounds for the tasks ahead of them. On the other hand, none of them invented the internet.

Ed

16 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:33:11 PDT by edskid
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Is winning the only criteria for voting? Should we operate as a colony of amoeba and simply try to guess what all the other amoeba are going to do and simply do that, because that's what everyone else is doing? We should all simply follow the polls and take a guess at who's going to win and vote for the winner?

Actually, Ross Perot did win, his major issue was Balancing the Budget. Because of the 20% of the vote he got, the Democratic President and the Republican Congress did what was necessary to balance the budget in the attempt to attract the 1 in 5 votes, who voted for Perot.

17 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:34:47 PDT by Jabba the Tutt
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

You are 100% correct. The same thing applies to Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes etc.

18 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:36:09 PDT by anon345
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Interesting post...My only comment is that many embrace third party candidates not because they hold some outside chance to actually win, but to align themselves with a philosophy of government that closely resembles their own beliefs. Your theory holds plenty of water for more reasons than you state, and I fully agree that there are no third party candidates with the actual experience that would warrant a trip to the WH, but beginning in 1992 and continuing through today is an undercurrent of change in the political landscape of America. On one hand, we have many voters becoming increasingly disinfranchised with the state of politics today in America, and on the other we see a wave of change coming over the perception of a two-party system of government. It is my strong belief that if the third party candidates are not shown support and wither away, we will never stand a chance of returning American government to a true Republic with Constitutional rule. This election cycle, all over the country, at all levels of government, third party candidates are going to be making the local headway you speak of. Maybe in four years, or more likely eight (if we survive Chinagate), we will be able to field a true alternative to more big government and pandering politicians.

19 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:57:44 PDT by cliniclinical
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Tell that to George Washington.

20 Posted on 09/27/2000 20:58:25 PDT by DAnconia55
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Biblebelter

If you thought Stockdale and this Foster woman were lulus,did anyone catch Nader's running mate at the Nader rally televised by C-Span.

I have not seen "LaDuke" -- is that a man or a woman? -- anywhere but on bumper stickers. Everytime I see it, though, I think of the song..."Duke, duke, duke, Duke of Earl..."

Stockdale is a legitimate war hero, but had no business being a VP candidate. He wasn't nearly polished enough for high office (and you DO have to be polished).

21 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:00:08 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Good contribution. I'd just like to point out one thing that some people here don't understand clearly enough. It's that running for U.S. President is a profession - a career - for some of the people doing it. They manage to amass some money, live well, travel around giving speeches, and generally stay in the spotlight. This is not a new phenomenon. Norman Thomas and Harold Stassen were doing it 50 years ago. With today's 500-channel media universe, it's even easier and more lucrative. People like Howard Phillips and Pat Buchanan may have some good ideas and motives, but they don't expect to get elected. Anyone who votes for them is taking them more seriously than they take themselves.

22 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:03:30 PDT by TheMole
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Jabba the Tutt

Actually, Ross Perot did win, his major issue was Balancing the Budget. Because of the 20% of the vote he got, the Democratic President and the Republican Congress did what was necessary to balance the budget in the attempt to attract the 1 in 5 votes, who voted for Perot.

For the sake of argument, let's accept that. Do you think that it could have happened with Perot as President, especially after the inevitable gaffes that would have proven him to be of questionable sanity? Can you imagine a State of The Union address from a guy who said he dropped out of the race for President because he didn't want his daughter's wedding to be ruined?

After a couple of years of a Perot administration, Dan Quayle might have been able to win in 1996!

23 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:07:18 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

An A-Bert type vanity to counteract the dozens that he and those of his ilk create.

In other words....."So what! Everybody does it"

Where have I heard that type of logic before when one was attempting to defend an act that they knew was wrong?

24 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:08:12 PDT by hole_n_one
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: DAnconia55

Tell that to George Washington.

Tell what to George Washington?

Read the rest of the thread.

25 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:08:47 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Mind you, I found your post to be well thought out, articulate, clear and concise.

Why you would equate it to an A+Bert "vanity" post is beyond me.

26 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:25:32 PDT by hole_n_one
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Goldi-Lox

"Would you like to explain your logic to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Hamilton?"

All had military experience, and all were extremely experienced politicians, though their skills were honed under British rule whereby they couldn't sit in the English houses of government. Your logic is faulty, as is your understanding of history with regard to LNSmitthee's extremely well written "vanity".

The closest thing next to Hoover that I can think of is Abraham Lincoln, who served in a small potatoes legislature in Illinois and served one unremarkable term as a congressman many years before he sprang onto the national scene. During the 1860 presidential race, Lincoln was not known for prior experience, but for his thoughts regarding the contemporaneous hot-button topics; slavery, secession, and states rights.

27 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:31:09 PDT by yooper
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]


To: hole_n_one

Methinks this essay is not a mere vanity, it is as well presented and defended as is the topic's importance. Bet JR encourages this type of 'vanity' as the exception to the rule. Fregards

28 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:33:03 PDT by LEB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

I won't for any of the 3rd party presidential candidates, but I would like to point on Harry Browne and John Hagelin WERE smart enough to choose running mates who have held political offices. In fact, Harry Browe's running mate was actually an intermin mayor of a small city that got elected in his own right for two terms.

My feeling of why the 3rd party candidates won't be elected president in not because of what offices they held ( as former president Chet Arthur had ZERO millitary experience and political experience before he was selected as V.P. )

Rather, the reason NO 3rd party candidate has ever won & WILL NEVER win is summed up in two words:
ELECTORIAL COLLEGE.

29 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:40:35 PDT by BillyBoy
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: LEB

Methinks this essay is not a mere vanity, it is as well presented and defended as is the topic's importance.

I agree.......However, I wasn't the one that tried to defend it's presentation with the arguement that "everybody else does it".

30 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:47:04 PDT by hole_n_one
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]


To: LEB and L.N.Smithee

LEB, you said "Methinks this essay is not a mere vanity, it is as well presented and defended as is the topic's importance. Bet JR encourages this type of 'vanity' as the exception to the rule."

Just yesterday, Jim Robinson made the following statement in a thread he started:" And, lastly, please stay away from the vanities. Post your short rants and comments as replies to existing articles. Then we won't be cluttering up the place and slowing down the system with excess threads and other baggage. If you want to take the time to write a decent article or editorial (and you know your stuff) then, by all means, write it, spell check it, check your grammer, look it over and edit it for reasonableness, make sure you won't be embarrassed in the morning and post aweigh! But a one or two line rant or short commentary can usually be posted as a reply to an existing article."

I think this essay certainly fits into the "post aweigh" category. Btw, I don't do links but one can find Mr. Robinson's thread here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39d16f8a74c9.htm

L.N.Smithee, I think you have made some excellent points -- the place for a grassroots movement to start is at the bottom, not the top.

31 Posted on 09/27/2000 21:55:44 PDT by kayak
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]


To: kayak

A message from Jim Robinson......

Vanity: On vanities, breaking news and other posting hints

32 Posted on 09/27/2000 22:01:10 PDT by hole_n_one
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | Top | Last ]


To: Goldi-Lox

>> Would you like to explain your logic to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison? I don't think any of THEM were politicians, and they seem to have done alright for us. <<

Not true.

Political offices held by George Washington prior to being elected president:

*1753-1754-- Elected by British parliment to command over Fort Neccessity (relived of duty in late 1754 after French attack)
*1774-1776-- Delegate to first and second Continential Congresses, selected to Represent Virgina
*1787-- Chaired constitution convension and presided over hearings that drew up new constitution of the united states, also an honorary delegate.

Political Offices held by Thomas Jefferson prior to being elected president:

*1775-1776-- Delegate to second Continential congress, selected to represent Virgina. While member, was selected by fellow delegates to write Declaration of Independance.
*1779-1781-- Elected Governor of Virgina
*1783-1784-- Elected U.S. Representative to Congress from Virgina under the articles of confederation
*1784-1785-- Dipolmatic comissioner to represent U.S. Congress in Europe
*1785-1789-- Appointed U.S. Ambassador to France
*1789-1793-- Appointed Sec. of State under President Washington
*1797-1801-- Elected Vice-President of the United States by electorial college

Politcal Offices held by James Madison prior to being elected President:

*1776-1777-- Elected member of the Virgina legislature
*1778-1779-- Senior advisor and council to Governor of Virgina
*1780-1783-- Delegate to Congress under the articles of confederation
*1786, 1787,-- Selected as delegate to Annapolis constituion convension, later as a delegate to national constitution convension
*1789--1797-- Elected U.S. Representative to Congress from Maryland
*1779-1800-- Due to citzenship requirements for Maryland, resigned as U.S. Representative, moved back to Virgina and was re-lected member of the Virgina legislature
*1801--1809-- Appointed Sec. of State under President Jefferson

Now, all three of these men did hold a lot of "civilian" jobs in their early careers (solder, lawyer, and writer-- respectively), but to say they weren't politicians as their main job later in life is pretty misleading. You don't go from being a farmer one day and being president the next.

33 Posted on 09/27/2000 22:06:46 PDT by BillyBoy
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]


To: hole_n_one

Thanks! One of these days I'm going to make the time to learn to do that.

34 Posted on 09/27/2000 22:08:53 PDT by kayak
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

I have to disagree. I point to Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution as my refrence.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

This allows any qualified person of thirty five years or older to hold the position of POTUS. There are no statements of other former services or experiences being necessary to hold this office. Alan Keyes, PJB, Howard Phillips, Harry Browne, Steve Forbes, and yes even you, have the right granted under the Constitution of the United States to run for this office.

When this right is no longer held to be true then we have lost our Constitution. The offices our founders established were for the common person and the terms were written in the simplest language possible. Personally I would like to see a return to laws written just in those basic terms. One law passed at a time with simple language so every person can read and know it's meaning. I know whats gonna be said not many laws would pass or there would be a great back log. Better to have that and have complete understanding of the laws before you than what we have now. You should not need pre-law to understand a bill before congress. Our founders would be furious even Webster would have trouble with it. Let's not loose focus that any one of our kids has the right to possibly hold this nations highest office.

35 Posted on 09/27/2000 22:09:29 PDT by cva66snipe
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Bump..

36 Posted on 09/27/2000 22:25:56 PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: cva66snipe

The essay doesn't say that third party candidates or anyone else can't run for the presidency, only that, realistically, they can't win. Things seem to be changing but for now, IMHO, the author is correct.

37 Posted on 09/27/2000 22:26:50 PDT by kayak
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

True, the presidency is not yet an entry-level position. But who knows when the future will imitate the past?

The position of Emperor of Rome once became an entry-level position. Back on March 28, 193 A.D., shortly after the assassination of Commodus, the Praetorian Guard auctioned off the position of Emperor to the highest bidder. One Didius Julianus, a rich businessman with no political or governing experience, encouraged by his wife and daughter, entered the bidding earnestly, promising each Praetorian 6,250 drachmas. That was the highest bid, and Didius was thus proclaimed Emperor by the Praetorians. Of course, Didius had no experience, and his crass purchase outraged the Roman people, who appealed to their legions to come home from Brittany and elsewhere to dipose him -- which they did, beheading him in a bathroom in the palace on June 2, 193.

No time for on the job training.

38 Posted on 09/27/2000 22:43:02 PDT by Bounceback
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: kayak

Both Phillips and Keyes have more than enough experience in both foriegn and domestic matters to hold the job. Phillips has held offices and positions since at least Nixon. As a matter of fact he seems to be one of the more established among independents. But we are dealing with a two party system that will raise the bar to keep others out. And lower that same bar to keep some others in.

39 Posted on 09/27/2000 22:44:05 PDT by cva66snipe
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Nice theory, but what about William Howard Taft? I thought he was never elected to anything before the Presidency, though he did have Theodore Roosevelt's strong backing. An Internet search shows that he was elected to a term on the Ohio State Supreme Court after having been appointed earlier. Still, that's not much electioneering in his resume.

Chester Alan Arthur served in a variety of (I believe) appointive offices (Chief Engineer, Quartermaster General, Collector of the Port of New York). Of course he did campaign for his fellow Republicans and he was elected to the Vice Presidency.

These are probably the exceptions with prove the rule, though. Today, men with such limited experience of politicking wouldn't be considered even for the Vice Presidency.

But, as was noted, the purpose of third parties isn't so much to win elections as to bring issues into public discussion. Following European politics I was struck with a parallel to the US experience. When taxes get too high or regulation too intrusive, some European countries (Denmark, for example) have seen third parties arise headed by essentially apolitical businessmen. In some cases they've done very well, because the "second" party politicians have become accustomed to losing, and only a new entrant can shake up the political scene. They rarely take power, but they do transform the political landscape and make change possible.

40 Posted on 09/27/2000 23:11:50 PDT by x
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: BillyBoy

(as former president Chet Arthur had ZERO millitary experience and political experience before he was selected as V.P.)

You are correct that he had no political experience, but Arthur is listed as having been a "Quartermaster General." He became President after the 1881 assassination of James Garfield (in Garfield's sixth month on the job), and was not nominated by the Republicans for the office in 1884.

41 Posted on 09/28/2000 10:32:35 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | Top | Last ]


To: x

Nice theory, but what about William Howard Taft? I thought he was never elected to anything before the Presidency, though he did have Theodore Roosevelt's strong backing. An Internet search shows that he was elected to a term on the Ohio State Supreme Court after having been appointed earlier. Still, that's not much electioneering in his resume.

You are correct. Mea culpa.

42 Posted on 09/28/2000 10:36:31 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Taft (a distant relative, and we share a similar physiognomy (sp.?)) was Governor of the Phillipines. He can be considered on of the Fathers of the War on Drugs. In the Phillipines, the Chinese immigrants brought the habit of smoking opium with them. The Brits, Dutch and Americans decided to get into the business of moral uplift and attempted to control the international trade in opium. That included trade to the Phillipines, which at the time was an American colony. Taft reasoned, that we couldn't restrict 'international' trade in opium, without 'domestic' restrictions on the opium trade in the States. He was unfortunately successful in getting the Senate to pass a treaty and get both Houses to restrict opium. Thanks.

43 Posted on 09/28/2000 19:25:31 PDT by Jabba the Tutt
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | Top | Last ]


To: kayak

Just for the record. I did read JR's post prior and thanks. Fregards

44 Posted on 09/30/2000 00:06:20 PDT by LEB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

They don't have a core constituency, they don't have a track record, and they don't have the desire and/or courage to actually work from within the system before saying they should be reinventing it.

Sounds like shrub...

The idea that some "outsider" can ride into D.C. on a white stallion and clean up government single-handed is as imaginary as the movies that had that sort of thing happening in Old West villages

Or, just as "imaginary" as...Abraham Lincoln from an obscure 3rd party...

45 Posted on 09/30/2000 00:24:41 PDT by 34665287
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: 34665287

Sounds like shrub...

George W. Bush has a core constituency as the twice-elected governor of Texas.

Or, just as "imaginary" as...Abraham Lincoln from an obscure 3rd party...

The idea that Lincoln emerged from a Republican Party that had not already firmly established itself as a major force is a myth.

By the time Lincoln ran for President as a Republican in 1860, the Whig party had vanished. The aforementioned Zachary Taylor was the last Whig elected (in 1848). Millard Fillmore, who succeeded Taylor after his death six months after his inauguration, wasn't nominated by the Whigs to succeed him; they instead chose Winfield Scott. Scott was slaughtered by Democrat Franklin Pierce in 1852. He ended up being the Whigs' last serious challenger for the White House.

In 1856, the Republicans' fledgling Presidential run was made by John C. Fremont, who garnered over one-third of both the electoral and the popular vote in his loss to Democrat James Buchanan. Millard Fillmore also ran, but not as a Whig -- he was on the "Know Nothing" ticket, and received eight electoral votes. The Whigs won NONE -- which places them in the same situation as any of the third parties on the scene today.

By 1856, for all intents and purposes, the Whigs were nothing more than a memory -- they had been replaced by the GOP.

In 1860, Lincoln defeated Buchanan's Vice President, John Breckinridge, for the Presidency. A former Congressman who had come to national prominence during the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates, he had a core constituency in Illinois, and won his first term in a landslide. His victory in 1864 was even wider, and and he was assassinated barely a month after his second inauguration.

Supporters of Perot and other quadrennial also-rans will spin the well-worn tale of Anonymous Abe Lincoln, emerging from nowhere to take the Presidency after getting the public's attention. Now you know the truth.

46 Posted on 09/30/2000 13:45:42 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

So might Jesse Ventura.

The day Americans elect Jesse "The Moron" Ventura to the Presidency is the day I join B-Chan as a monarchist.

47 Posted on 09/30/2000 13:49:27 PDT by TaSIRWC
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

..there were actually some Demos a couple of years ago who thought it wouldn't be a bad idea for Springer to get back into politics

Couple years ago???, just last Spring, some politicians from Ohio tossed about the possibility of Springer running for the Senate this year.

48 Posted on 09/30/2000 13:53:53 PDT by Stand Watch Listen
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]


To: TaSIRWC

The day Americans elect Jesse "The Moron" Ventura to the Presidency is the day I join B-Chan as a monarchist.

I second the motion.

49 Posted on 09/30/2000 13:57:14 PDT by Snuffington
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Because Jesse Ventura, as opposed to all the third party candidates since John Anderson, has legislative experience as a city mayor and the governor of a state

Make that Executive experience.

50 Posted on 09/30/2000 13:59:01 PDT by pgkdan
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

You get the feeling that the candidates who run ONLY for President really know that they can't possibly win, but that they want their ideas to be promoted.

For the record, Browne, Phillips and Nader have all made comments to this effect. And Buchanan has come darn close.

Phillips and Browne have gone further and indicated they are running as part of a long term effort to build their respective parties. They hope to influence not only this election, but elections in the years to come.

Those who think politics should look no further than the nearest election are dangerous because they are easily manipulated creatures.

51 Posted on 09/30/2000 14:05:28 PDT by Snuffington
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Goldi-Lox

Would you like to explain your logic to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Hamilton? I don't think any of THEM were politicians, and they seem to have done alright for us.

You need to brush up on your history and lay off the fairy tales. Washington won the Revolution (other Generals turned President mentioned by Smithee were Eisenhower and Grant) and was an elected member of Virginia's House of Burgesses and a member of the Continental Congress prior to his appointment as Commander in Chief. Jefferson and Madison served in Va's House of Burgess and as Va'a Governor, not to mention their terms in the Continental Congress and Hamilton was never President, but did serve in the Continental Congress, as Washington's Secretary of the Treasury and served as Washington's chief aide in the Rev.

All in all I think they all could be considered politicians, although that term hardly sums up the genius and spirit of any of them.

52 Posted on 09/30/2000 14:07:37 PDT by pgkdan
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]


To: pgkdan

OK. Neither a mayor nor a governor is a legislator. Fair enough.

53 Posted on 09/30/2000 14:16:08 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | Top | Last ]


To: Snuffington

For the record, Browne, Phillips and Nader have all made comments to this effect. And Buchanan has come darn close.

I don't know why they should be in the Presidential debates, then.

54 Posted on 09/30/2000 14:30:21 PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Winona LaDuke:

Info here .

I have met her several times, and have some grudging respect for some of the things she's done. I especially like the White Earth Land Recovery Project, in which the members of the White Earth band of Ojibway are buying back their reservation land, much of which was lost to bankers and swindlers in the 30's, rather than trying to take it back through lawsuits and legislation.

She's at least been elected to some tribal offices. . . . (Don't worry, I'm not going Green.)

55 Posted on 09/30/2000 14:47:34 PDT by TheHeterodoxConservative
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | Top | Last ]


To: L.N. Smithee

Consider: Winning is:
(a)getting elected - I believe this is your answer
(b)moving the pile in your direction - this is mine (Goldwater did not "win" the Presidency either but he moved the pile toward conservatism)

With apologies you are missing the point on what winning is ('is' as they say). To be sure, the chances of getting a Hail Mary to win the game are as usual small. However, winning starts with turning around the ball around to move in the direction of America-first and Life-first.

Right now the ball is heading toward the goals of China-first and abortion-first. �W'. may have his heart in the right place in some areas but now hidden in the woods behind Bush are the GOP RINOs ready to take over -McCain, Whitman, Ridge, Pataki, Powell, Mrs. Dole, etc.

Bush, without the 'vision thing', will be victimized like his father was by the Rudmans and the Kristols. The showing of pro-America and pro-life candidates like Bauer and Keyes was miserable. The pro-abortionists were by far preferred. The Democrats fought the pro-life court nominees like Bork and Thomas while the GOP rolled completely over for pro-abortionists Ginsburg and Breyer.

The pro-China ('read pro-money') GOP is predominant. If the GOP spin on trade really would change a country, why are we still bombing Iraq? Why not make Iraq a 'most favored' trade nation permanently and treat them like China?

So a few first downs are necessary to keep the ball moving and to retain possession. A vote for Gore or a vote for Bush will not move the ball. Social Conservatatives working from within is hopeless. Speakers are denied the platform and pro-life Reagan-Democrats are run out of the party as 'extremists'. Dole would not read the platform and was as much VP to Clinton as Gore was.

A reformed Reform Party ready to conserve America's morality and liberty awaits birth. Let's bring it to Life not abort it through smear and suffocation.

It is time to move the ball for pro-America and pro-Life and middle Americans. You need to be counted to have any effect.

BE COUNTED - IF YOU AGREE WITH BUCHANAN, VOTE FOR BUCHANAN - DON'T WASTE YOUR PRINCIPLES. - That is what 'winning' really is.

56 Posted on 09/30/2000 14:50:25 PDT by ex-snook
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | Top | Last ]


To: x

"but what about William Howard Taft?"

Before being elected to the presidency, Taft held the following offices:

*State Supreme Court Justice
*U.S. Solicitor General
*Circuit Court Judge
*Governor of the Philippines
*U.S. Secretary of War

57 Posted on 09/30/2000 19:56:51 PDT by anon345
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | Top | Last ]


Let's take aim at the core logic of this post: past is prologue. Always. Forever. The same logic lies behind the statement that says that all inventions have already been invented! Such a worldview forbids the discontinuity, and proclaims that "nothing shall change because this is the way it has been and always will be." I'm sure the people in Pompeii thought the very same thing. My point? It's dangerous to rule out the unlikely, and in some cases, it is a fatal mistake. If the unstated goal of your post to help major party backers feel invincible, then you've done all reformers a huge favor. Thank you! :)

58 Posted on 03/14/2001 20:27:42 PST by =Intervention=
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | Top | Last ]

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.

[ Top | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC