| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 12:51 pm EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
 |
|
Handicapped was a very poor choice of words, restricted is better. Yes, I do believe a restricted President is better than one whose party controls congress. Otherwise I would not have said there is balance with the Dems in charge. Why? Because as I said there is balance. NJ is horrible because the senate and assembly are in the same party as the Governor meaning there is no balance. It forces compromise assuming the President is one who like Clinton can cross bridges. I don't see Obama being that type, McCain has shown he can do that so the balance is very good in his case.
Bush was Governor as was Clinton, FDR, Wilson, Reagan, etc... To me that is more important than being a Senator because it is at least an indication that they can make hard decisions and lead. That is why Corzine gave up a senate seat to become Governor. To me that is more experience than Obama. Can't see it anyway else. Now, I don't like Bush and his resume as Governor did not help, but he did have a stronger resume. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 1:08 pm EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
| Who are the president's men? This question is more important. This is who's who list of failure: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 1:22 pm EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
| Yes, but Congress still holds all the power. I'd take balance over a President and congress of the same party regardless of the advisors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 2:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Bush was Governor as was Clinton, FDR, Wilson, Reagan, etc... To me that is more important than being a Senator because it is at least an indication that they can make hard decisions and lead. That is why Corzine gave up a senate seat to become Governor. To me that is more experience than Obama. Can't see it anyway else. Now, I don't like Bush and his resume as Governor did not help, but he did have a stronger resume. |
You can't make that statement about Governors being more important than Senators broadly. While subjective, it really varies from State to state. Some Governors, like California and even New Jersey, have some real authority and and direct involvement in the politics of the State. Not so in Texas. It is a largely ceremonial position. It is the "face" of the State but not the leader. That's why Bush only had to work an average of 4 hours a day when Governor... It's also why it was easy to get elected on his name despite no experience. And even then he only served one term and had never held political office before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
