>>>>
>>>>But I've said for years that a president should have served as a full-term governor first, and I have to stick with that.
>>>
>>>So.. that disqualifies Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Ike et al.
>>>Hmmm..
>>
>>There's no comparison between 200 years ago and today. In that time, the founding fathers saw the congress and presidency as common positions where normal people server the terms and go home. They had no idea there' be 20 term representatives serving...
>>
>>With the size of the country today, I fully agree with Kevin that the president should at least have been a full-term governor of a state. The opposite would be exactly what we have no with Obozo. No executive management experience coming to the office of president and look what we have. It would be like me being appointed CEO of Boeing airlines. I'd be lost without a clue and trying to wing it and hope I didn't foul up the system to much. (pun intended). Exactly what we have today except he doens't care if he screws up everything, just so his name is written in history. Believe me, it will be, right along with Jimmy Carter.
>
>Carter was governor of Georgia.
>
>I'm not saying being a full-term governor means a person will make a good president. But we definitely agree, the lack of executive experience is a big issue.
>
>There are some presidents who win largely because of circumstances surrounding the opposing candidate. In the case of Ford, much of the country wanted to get away from the remnants of Nixon. Ford was superior to Carter in all the ways that counted, but the country was looking at it from a different perspective.


I was referring to Carter in terms of the worst. His name is already written in history and i'm sure Obozo's will be linked right there as the worst of all times.