rulemylife -> RE: President Palin? (8/29/2008 12:43:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice If a senator is such a poor choice for President, why did the GOP nominate one? Historically, Senators dont win presidential elections. One will this time, obviously. But if you look over presidential elections in the history of this country....only a handful of senators have won while tons of governors and businessmen have won. The reason has to do with leadership. There is a difference in the type of office. The president is an executive. He's a leader. He forms policy and executes the law. A Senator is more often than not a lawyer that writes complicated 1,000 page laws. And many times this contrast to obvious when you pair up a governor against a senator. That's why Bush won in 2004. The Democrats would have fared better I think against Bush had they nominated a governor rather than Kerry. Fifteen Senators of forty-three Presidents. That's 34%, slighly more than a handful. Those fifteen inlude Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman, and JFK, three Presidents who are generally considered among the top ten by most historians.
|
|
|
|