Tuesday, June 22, 2010

An inconvenient historical truth

"Ok who's ready for a new federal law? How 'bout this: "No one may run for President of the United States after previously only being elected to a state legislature and U.S. Senate with no chief executive experience."

How a federal law will change the Constitution I don't know, but that law would have disqualified Washington, Adams (both John and John Quincy), Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...and even in modern times: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush.

Okay, we get it, Republicans: you don't like Barry. But this petty temper tantrum against American history has to stop.

This is why, honest-to-goodness, I'm not actually worried about 2012 in the least. The best they've got is the recycling of an old line from the 2008 McCain campaign. After all, the only thing that McCain really had going for him over Barack Obama was that he had a resume.

1 comment:

David said...

Actually, they've got more than that; they've got Obama's record to date, which is causing him to hemorrhage support with astounding speed.

However, what they don't have is a viable alternative in the form of a candidate who excites, intrigues or inspires. And historically no matter how dissatisfied the electorate may grow, we tend not to "throw the bum out" unless we've got a superior model bum to replace him with. Hence Clinton's reelection in 1996 and W's in 2004.

The selection of a candidate is going to be a major challenge for the GOP, unless a dark horse suddenly materializes in the next year or so.

I'm not sure W belongs in your list above, as I'm guessing the site you mention considers a governorship to be "chief executive experience." Not sure when being a governor became a stronger qualification for the presidency than being a senator, but aside from 2008 (when we'd have gotten a senator either way, like it or not), I don't think a senator's beat a governor since the 60s.