NYTimes: Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President?

Jesus, basso. How many new threads do you need to post in one day?

You can't post in somebody else's thread? Or just dump all your crap in one daily thread? Tell you what. I'll start it for you.

 

How much does the RNC pay you per thread? I assume you're giving Clutch a cut of your earnings.

 

seeing as though no president in recent memory has come directly from the Senate, i'm gonna go ahead and say it isn't written anywhere.

but here you go:

this is a cute approach, though.

 

As far as I can tell the only qualifications are at least 35 years of age and an American citizen born on US soil. Whether that means you should vote for anyone who meets those minimal qualifications that is a different matter.

 

And let me guess, you voted for her? See how well that turned out?

 

sorry . . .was it meant to be clear?
or was it meant to get a 'knee-jerk' reaction
so you can jump out with a big ole . . AHA!!

just curious

In either case. . . I agree
Palin should have her shot . . .unfortunately
it means folx will take shots at her . . ..
alas that is modern politics
Whether it is her daughter being pregnant
Obama's fist bumps
McCain's number of house

I think Dr Covey siad a phrase that I really like that fits
American Politics
" . . it is stuck in the Thick of Thin things"
a bunch of crap that really does not matter

Until Palin shoots someone in the face . . . . I will try to listen to what she says . .though her history will color everything . .no matter what

Rocket River

 

3 of the last 4 Presidents have been governors, who's been saying that only Senators can be President?

 

I could have swore your party started this he’s unqualified or he’s not fit lead crap.Now all of a sudden since McCain picked this women he only met once with ) foreign policy experience, you guys forgot who started this.


Conservatives=Hypocrites

 

Look at this pimp slapping that Newt lays down on the hapless Obamaclown. He left him speechless.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yN54Fb9dLKs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yN54Fb9dLKs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


OWNED

 

"real" mayor

"real" governor

then he lists two "accomplishments" twice

no substance there at all

FLUFF

 

You should make sure you know exactly who you are talking about before you decide to lay into someone for being a conservative. Perticularly if they have several years of posting history that show them very clearly to be a left-leaning moderate.

 

I think it's noteworthy that few Senators are elected president. The personality and skillset needed to be a great senator are different than president. That's why I don't think a long legislative career in the Senate helps one become president. McCain is almost a perfect Senator. He's a loner, loose-cannon, volcanic type of guy. He is tailor-made to be a grandstanding, pontificating, sword-wielding blowhard of senator with a very small staff and a couple of trusted aides. He can focus of specific pet issues and be completely ignorant on a host of others (like the economy-in his own words-even though he been in Washington for over 30 years). Senators can be specialists. Presidents cannot.

A President has to preside over an entire branch of government. This takes very strong organizations skills and someone who is very good at choosing exceptionally competent underlings. McCain fails on both counts. It takes someone who has the brainpower to be well-spoken on every major issue. It takes someone who is deliberate and thoughtful, can swallow their ego (and tongue) and not "shoot off at the mouth".

It's no wonder egotistical senators who build their 20-30 year-old statewide kingdoms don't make president.

 

basso, since only a couple of senators have gone straight from the Senate to the White House in the space of about one hundred years, I completely fail to see your point. You did have a point, didn't you?

 

You are calling the Times partisan hypocrites because a different author took a different position in an editorial 20+ years ago?

I guess they are hypocrites, too, because they don't support parachute pants, mullets and p*rn-star mustaches as they did back then? Bit of a reach, to say the least.

 

I believe basso has posted quite a few articles from the Times that are critical of Democrats. Unfortunately he doesn't realize that that's how an unbiased news source looks like, it criticizes both sides instead of just being in the tank for Republicans.

To basso, National Review is an unbiased news source even though they have never turned a profit...ever, and rely on conservative donors to keep them afloat.

Think about it, the The New York Times is a publically traded company, National Review is supported only by rich conservative donors...