Posted on 06/25/2011 12:05:20 PM PDT by unseen1
Does anyone ever wonder why the last member of the House of Representatives elected to POTUS was from 1880? It is a simple matter of Executive experience. Congress critters have for all practical purposes ZERO executive experience. The last member of the House elected to POTUS was Garfield in 1880. He had served 18 years in the house was a Brigadier General during the Civil war and President of Hiram College. With all of this, Garfield only won the nomination on the 36th vote at the convention and won the POTUS with less than 10,000 votes to spare. He was shot and killed in 1881. His administration up until then was one of contention with the Senate and a move to increase federal power.
Now why would the citizens of the land refuse to vote for a House member for the last 131 years? For the simple reason that they have no executive experience. A House member can have a maximum of 18 staff with an additional 4 part time members. That is it. A total of 18 staff. They are given a total allowance from $1,262,065 to $1,600,539.
So a House member is GIVEN between 1.2million and $1.6million for staff wages, office expenses and office mail. They are limited to running an office of 18 people. That's it 18 people and max $1.6 million in expenses. They never have to worry where the money is coming from, worry about meeting payroll, worry about expansion, downsizing, benefits, etc. They don't have to deal with intradepartmental arguments for limited resources, they don't need to concern themselves with power plays or budgeting. In short they are not required to make any executive decisions as a House member.
The responsibilities of a House member in other words do not concern executive decisions at any level. Thus, no House member has been elected since 1880. Further, I highly doubt with all the issues facing this country that require major executive decisions to rectify our problems, that the USA will suddenly want to elect a person that has no skill set in making those types of decisions.
0 has no experience other then being groomed to destroy the U.S. and do as much damage as he can. He hasn’t done anything
at all; everything he has done was handed to him or fabricated
to make him look good.
Bachmann needs to step behind someone and push them forward and then attack Obama’s record and decisions like crazy.
Experience? No one cares about that.
Yeap while Senators have more excutive experience than a house member since they ar enot limited to staff mx. They are like house members in for all practical purposes they have zero executive experience. And elected Obama shows the stupidity of electing any congress member be it a Senator or a house member.
Governors make the best presidents...with plenty of executive experience.
You better hope pissant doesn't come to this thread. :O)
It takes a lot of education, cajoling and sophistry to read multi-generational welfare, land grabs, progressive taxation and massive intrusion into the lives of Americans into the responsibilities delineated in the document.
Governing in light of the Framers intent shouldn't be that difficult.
On the other hand, it would be more difficult to be a State Legislature, given their responsibilities which are not found in the Constitution.
It's upside down, and in general, governments don't willingly give back power to the people.
Sure they do because they are seeing how the lack of it is impacting them daily. Ask yourself how likely they will be to make the same mistake again. I think the people will eelct a Govenor this time around. The race will come down IMO to Palin and Mitt. Pick your poision.
Personally, I think that house painters would make the best leaders.
At least they don't have a track record of putting us in the sh!tty situation we are in now via their politics.
I was thinking about him and some others when I wrote that line. the Falcon party will not fly again.
agreed. but sadly no house painters are running this time.
You're ahead of 'yourself' . . . . . . . but right!
yeah but state represenatives have their own consitutions they must follow.
Omaba's case was one primarily of race and NOTHING else...except that for the 8 years of constant BDS garbage, which also helped Obama.
Now, Obama has a record ( a lousy one ! ) and most people are yearning for a real president, who is a leader and has experience.
If a person is seriously accomplished in their field, and honestly articulate, actually understands what they are talking about, and not just pulling a fast one, then they can be President. I don’t think Eisenhower was a governor or a senator, but a General. I think it depends on the individual and what they are truly bringing to the table. If they are convincing enough to get elected with the right principals, then they are capable of learning the Presidency.
If a person is seriously accomplished in their field, and honestly articulate, actually understands what they are talking about, and not just pulling a fast one, then they can be President. I don’t think Eisenhower was a governor or a senator, but a General. I think it depends on the individual and what they are truly bringing to the table. If they are convincing enough to get elected with the right principals, then they are capable of learning the Presidency.
Obama sucks for several reasons, but the primary one, believe it or not, isn’t his lack of experience, that was just a good reason not to have elected him. The primary reason he sucks is because his IDEAS suck. He is a quasi-socialist liberal. I’d take a conservative 7-11 owner over Obama.
well there is that but even if his ideas were good. He would still be failing because he doess’t have the skill set to be a good POTUS.
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.