Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
8 years as a gov. beats even 20 years in the senate or congress imho any day…...and that includes slick willie....despite his short coming’s.. ( and as garner said the VP pos. is like a pitcher of warm spit, useless to everyone)....that’s why there have only been 2 senators elected as presidents…most people see a sitting or former governor as a more reliable indicator than sitting on the senate…or being a congressman…despite your apparent dislike for Bush he didn’t do as badly as some as Gov. of Texas…
|
Ordinarily I'd agree with you, and the experience one usually gains as governor outweighs the experience as Senator, at least in the eyes of voters. But Gore also had 8 years as Vice-President, and while the experience gained (through the duties and responsibilities of the office) by any individual vice-president has varied greatly over the years, Gore was a very active and involved Vice-President. I think that Gore's overall experience was significantly better than Bush's because of his 8 years as Vice-President.
As for the Garner quote, it's a classic. But he was one of FDR's opponents in the '32 election, and then became FDR's VP. They often disagreed on policy, and I suspect that FDR did not share the responsibilities with Garner as Clinton did with Gore.
Lastly, "apparent dislike for Bush" .... at this point, and I would not have thought it possible, Bush has surpassed Nixon as the worst President of my lifetime.