Which lawyer with no foreign policy experience was a great President?

[Padraig18]

Poll question: Which lawyer with no foreign policy experience was a great President?

:hi:

[onehandle]

1. Hello, freeps. nt

[Lex]

41. How is this a freep post?

I don't understand the "Hello,freeps" thing?

I mean, I know who the freeps are, but how is that related to the post?

[onehandle]

90. Heavy voting on the Republican....

The post is not a freep post.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Wow...Kind of strange to be on the same side as you, Paddy

After our respective Clark/Dean period

Its a nice feeling! :thumbsup:

[Padraig18]

3. Yes, it is.

:thumbsup:

[AP]

4. FDR was also a lawyer (Columbia Law School).

He was the secretary of the navy, of course, but he never fought in a war, and never wore a uniform, and gained most of his executive experience as governor of NY.

[Tweed]

7. Ah yes that executive experience that Edwards has too

Wait a minute! Edwards doesn't have any executive experience either! I always enjoy the fact that people must use other historical figures that have nothing to do with Edwards to explain how he will be a good president.

[Padraig18]

12. I find it odd that...

... people will bend over backwards to deny historical truths, e.g., that a lawyer with no FP experience and 6 weeks' military experience led this nation through the greatest crisi in its history-- the Civil War.

The job is what it is, and one either rises to the occasion, or one doesn't. There is no 'training' for POTUS, regardless of what some supporters of certain candidates here claim.

[Tweed]

20. I find it odd that...

people think I'm denying historical truths when all I'm saying is that there is no direct connection between Edwards and Lincoln. They are living more then a century apart and have no blood lines that I know of. You want to talk about lawyers with no foreign policy experience? All right, there are hundreds of thousands of them in this country. Why don't they run for president?

While there isn't "President boot camp", there are experiences that help people be president. Edwards doesn't have nearly as many of those experiences as Kerry.

[Padraig18]

29. He doesn't have nearly as many flaws as Kerry does, either.

Kerry has a track record the Republicans are DROOLING over, as we speak.

[Tweed]

31. Edwards doesn't have the experience and Republicans are DROOLING over that

It works both ways. Luckily for Kerry, the experience can detract whatever shots the Republicans may have.

[Padraig18]

32. 'Taxachussetts', 'Massachussetts liberal', 'Teddy Kennedy's pal'. etc..

Hard to run from those...

[Tweed]

40. 'Trial lawyer'

See ya

[Padraig18]

42. Thanks!

:hi:

[Nederland]

88. Nice retort

Even though I really like Edwards, I'm afraid I'll have to agree that 'Trail Lawyer' trumps 'Taxachussetts' every time.

[AP]

43. Bush ran a campaign 4 years ago AGAINST experience. They're

not going to be able to say with a straight face that it's suddenly the most improtant thing in the world. And if they act like Iraq means that it is, people are going to wonder why something on the other side of the world is so much more important than their jobs.

[Leilani]

50. What the heck does FP have to do with the Civil War?

Last I heard the Civil War was North vs South.

It wasn't North vs France, or South vs Germany.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. But NY state borders international waters

:)

[Padraig18]

14. So does NC.

:)

[AP]

44. I'm so glad you're on Edwards's side now. You're good.

[Padraig18]

51. Thanks.

I'm Irish, and I can smell blood in the water, or exploit a vulnerability as a matter of instinct.

[AP]

53. That's pretty fucking funny.

[Padraig18]

67. *grin*

:)

[Tweed]

5. John Kennedy had no foreign policy experience?!?

John Kennedy fought in WWII. His father was an ambassador to England. He served an entire term in the Senate before running for president. He wasn't elected into office during a crisis. John Edwards is no John Kennedy :hi:

[Padraig18]

8. He had no foreign policy experience.

Those are all life experiences.

[poskonig]

11. ?

That made no sense. :beer:

[Padraig18]

13. It makes perfect sense.

none of the items mentioned are 'foreign policy experience'.

[poskonig]

18. Senate Foreign Relations Committee counts.

Whether military experience counts is a matter of semantics, but you should at least give Kennedy credit for his experience in the Senate.

[Padraig18]

22. Then the Intelligence Committee must count, too.

:)

[spooky3]

24. I'm sure he will if people here will give equal credit to JE

for Senate experience.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. As long as we don't look at the facts, it makes sense.

Just as I can say, "Bush is an environmentalist, because of the 'Healthy Forests Initiative", similarly, someone can say "JFK had no foreign policy experience"

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

25. Oh, by all means, clear away this veil from my eyes!

:eyes:

[spooky3]

21. ???

fighting in WWII and having a daddy who took the family to England can be matched by various international trips someone else could take, with respect to the "foreign policy experience" it gives one. You appear to equate experience in another country with that, but having responsiblity for formulating policy is in fact a different matter.

Is it really a big difference to be in one's sixth year in the Senate versus having completed the six years?

There was no bigger crisis for any president to have dealt with than the nuclear threat and aggressiveness from the Russians/Soviet Union and its ally Cuba, directed toward the US, during Kennedy's campaign and tenure in office.

[Tweed]

27. JFK served an entire term in the Senate without running for President

Edwards has been running for president for half of the time he's been a Senator.

[Padraig18]

30. Prove that.

I assume you have evidence for that statement.

[Tweed]

33. With pleasure

NOV. 5, 1946: Elected as a U.S. representative for the 11th Congressional District in Boston at age 29. He is re-elected in 1948 and 1950.

NOV. 4, 1952: Elected as senator from Massachusetts and re-elected in 1958.

JAN. 2, 1960: Announces his candidacy for president of the United States.

8 years in the senate before he started campaigning for President. Crazy isn't? :hi:

[Padraig18]

35. JFK is also John Forbes Kerry.

That's who I thought you meant, when you used the initials.

[Tweed]

37. Gotcha, well this is also John F Kerry's first time running for President

[Leilani]

54. That's 14 years in Congress

if my math is correct?

And party elders at the time thought he wasn't experienced enough.

[AP]

57. If Kennedy had been elected in 54, he probably still would have run in 60

And if Kennedy had been a better student and worried about his future (ie, if he weren't totally rich) he might have gone to law school instead of running for congress.

[spooky3]

63. since people are splitting hairs here, let's be consistent

Nov. 4, 1952-Jan. 2, 1960 is a shade over 7 years, NOT 8.

[AP]

70. He would have been sworn in in Jan 1953, so it was 7 years...

...when he decided to run.

[spooky3]

66. I'm aware of Edwards running for the past year

Do you have evidence that he began running at the end of 2001 (the half way point in his Senate term)?

[Leilani]

49. John Kennedy was also in the House of Representatives

& he traveled through Europe extensively pre WWII, & then wrote a

book, "While England Slept", about the causes leading up to WWII.

[cosmicdot]

6. leadership skills are vital - those 3 people were skilled

from education, experience, knowledge, etc.

[Guaranteed]

9. John Edwards! nt

[sadiesworld]

15. Edwards cannot win. Kerry can. With Clark as VP, he will.

[Padraig18]

17. How, exactly, do you 'know' Edwards can't win?

I certainly have no crystal ball to peer into the future that lets me know that for a fact.

[Tweed]

28. He's is the favorite on the DU now

[Kahuna]

16. What does Lincoln have to do with now? I hate comparisons..

like this.

[Padraig18]

19. The comparison is for a reason.

It's to show how shallow and ridiculous some of these 'resume puffings' are.

[sadiesworld]

26. I concur, Lincoln didn't have to contend with 24/7 media shouting

in unison: "Vote Bush or terrorists will kill you".

[AP]

47. The media has brutalized presidents since the beginning. I think

wealth and Democracy (K.Phillips) has an overview of some of the nasty press coverage from history. It didn't start in 1992. It actually started with Jefferson.

[jpgpenn]

34. You should restate the subject heading!

To perhaps something like, "Which lawyer with no Domestic or Foreign policy experience that backed and continues to back a current president in a illegal war and has been caught in overinflating past life upbringing,would be a great President"? Wonder what responses we would get?

Then again a bit long for the subject heading but accurate none the less!

[Padraig18]

36. Do your own poll, then.

I like my subject heading just fine, thank you very much.

[citizen snips]

38. It looks like an accurate subject line to me.

All of them were lawyers and all of them were great presdents.

[Padraig18]

39. Thank you.

:hi:

[West Coast Democrat]

45. It's not only who would make a good president

but who, in a given election year, more voters believe would make a good president.

[Dookus]

46. it doesn't logically follow

that because Lincoln was a great president, any lawyer with no foreign policy experience would be just as good.

You might as well say that because Washington and Lincoln were tall, Kerry's obviously the best choice.

We were damned lucky to have Lincoln. He was a singular man at a singular time - I don't expect to see another one like him any time soon.

[Padraig18]

48. It also doesn't logically follow that...

... someone without foreign-policy experience will NOT be a good president. The evidence is clear that it is entirely within the realm of possibility that they WILL, Dookus.

[Dookus]

52. I've never claimed it was outside the realm of possibility

Hey, I like Edwards just fine. I'd happily vote for him.

My point is merely that comparing his inexperience to Lincoln's inexperience and then trying to draw a conclusion isn't logically sound.

Also, keep mind that the war Lincoln presided over was not a foreign one. The one we are fighting now is.

[Padraig18]

61. OK.

My point is that a lot of the alleged 'superiorities' that people are bashing each other over the head with are just so much smoke and mirros. As far as the civil war not being 'foreign', while literally true, it ignores the fact that both France and England were DEEPLY involved and hovering at the edges, and it took a very fine diplomatic balancing act to keept them from becoming directly involved. as I recall, lincoln did just fine, even though he had no FP experience at all.

[BootinUp]

55. What kind of Law did each practice?

[Padraig18]

59. Lincoln did general practice.

he did whatever came along, although in later years he did a lot of work for the Illinois Central R.R. . JFK never practiced, and Bill was AG of Arkansas, although I don't know what he did before that, tbh.

[R3dD0g]

64. Clinton taught law at the UofA

before he ran for AG. I don't know if he ever really practiced law for a living anywhere.

[Padraig18]

65. Thanks for the info.

:)

[Leilani]

56. 1 more point

John Kennedy was not a lawyer.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Post college, he lived in Europe, & attended
The London School of Economics, wrote his book, "While England Slept."

This was right before WWII broke out in Europe. He then returned to the states, & we soon had war.

Robert Kennedy & Ted Kennedy are both graduates of U of Va Law.

[Leilani]

58. Do I hear a response

from an Edwards supporter???

[Padraig18]

60. Could be.

I've made mistakes before. Why would a response from an Edwards' supporter be so doggoned crucial, however?

[Leilani]

62. Simply because the entire question was set up

about lawyers, therefore, I thought it important to point out.

I don't have a dog in this fight; my guy dropped out, & I will vote for Kerry or Edwards. They each have good points & bad points.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Which of them would get elected today?

Lincoln was as geeky as Kerry (at least according to some people's evaluations)

JFK was an "insider elitist"

and Clinton set the framework for all the fucking bullets we need to dodge in this next election ala the Kerry intern smear last week.

[incapsulated]

69. We're any of these guys elected *while we were at war*

No. And a civil war doesn't count, because foreign policy experience doesn't mean much then.

Also, all of these guys had far more experience in government than Edwards, who has less than one term under his belt.

We are in the middle of the Middle East, at war, in Afghanistan and in a totally different world.

[AP]

71. Are we at war now? And have we ever changed horses during war?

If we haven't, then you're arguing for Bush getting reelected.

[incapsulated]

74. I'm arguing that it will take the most experienced candidate

To take on a President during a time of war, to take on an administration fueled on fear. That candidate is not Edwards.

[Padraig18]

85. He's also the candidate with the most baggage

Baggage accumulted while gaining his vast experience.:eyes: Repeat after me: "Taxachussetts, Massachussetts liberal, Teddy Kennedy's pal"... You'll hear THOSE until the polls close on election day, and don't kid yourself that you won't.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. sorry but you are not allowed to ask questions outside the narrow set

of aassumptions being forwarded in the opening post of this thread. TO do so requires more than linear thinking and will be flatly rejected as off topic.

[Padraig18]

73. Lincoln had a single term in Congress, and a few in the IL legislature.

And yes, we were already at war when he was sworn in. Civil wars DO count as wars, whether it's an inconvenient fact, or not.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. That wasn't the question, the question was foreign policy

you keep narrowing and expanding the frame of this debate to suit your agenda.

[Padraig18]

78. I do no such thing. n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. You did right here

Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-19-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #69

73. Lincoln had a single term in Congress, and a few in the IL legislature.


And yes, we were already at war when he was sworn in. Civil wars DO count as wars, whether it's an inconvenient fact, or not.

Read your opening post. war is war. Foreign policy is much more of which war is one possible component. Nice try.

[Padraig18]

87. Context is crucial.

Original post:

incapsulated (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-19-04 02:59 PM
Response to Original message

69. We're any of these guys elected *while we were at war*

Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 03:04 PM by incapsulated
No. And a civil war doesn't count, because foreign policy experience doesn't mean much then.

Also, all of these guys had far more experience in government than Edwards, who has less than one term under his belt.

We are in the middle of the Middle East, at war, in Afghanistan and in a totally different world.

My response:

"Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-19-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #69

73. Lincoln had a single term in Congress, and a few in the IL legislature.


And yes, we were already at war when he was sworn in. Civil wars DO count as wars, whether it's an inconvenient fact, or not.




Nice try.

[incapsulated]

76. Great, let's nominate Edwards for President in 1861!

And then, we when get out of the time machine, we can see if he is every bit the man that Lincoln was under the same circumstances!

ps: Fort Sumter was not attacked until after Lincoln was elected (in April).

[Padraig18]

80. PS

Fort Sumter was cut off from resupply and reprovision before March 4th, 1861, and act of war. Other forts and arsenals WERE seized before March 4th, 1861.

[incapsulated]

82. We were not formally at war

And we were not overseas.

YOU decided to frame your question along foreign policy experience, not us. Now that it is inconvient for you, we are revisting a 150 year old civil war.

[Padraig18]

91. We're not formally 'at war now, either.

If one wishes to be legally precise.

[Dookus]

77. actually

we were not at civil war when he was sworn in. He was sworn in March 4, 1861. On April 12, 1861, the war began with the attack on Fort Sumter.

When Lincoln was ELECTED, in November of 1860, no states had yet seceded. South Carolina did so in December of 1860.

[incapsulated]

79. I pointed that out but

It doesn't matter in the time machine game. We can play it however we want!

What kind of a King would Edwards make during the American Revolution? Discuss.

[Padraig18]

83. Appeal to ridicule.

Mildly amusing, poor debating technique.

[Padraig18]

81. Define 'at war'

I call the seizing of forts and arsenals, and cutting others off from resupply and reprovision acts of war. If you want a 'pissing match' about Civil War history, 'bring it on'! :)

[incapsulated]

86. Actually, I don't

It's entirely irrelevant. It does not involve forgein policy experience in this century. Hell, even in this millennium!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. John Kennedy was the son of

the wartime ambassador to Britain as well as serving as a senator before running for president.

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and traveled around Europe.

So while neither one had experience in actually negotiating treaties or anything like that, they were knowledgeable about the rest of the world, unlike certain pseudo-Texans I could mention.

In Lincoln's day, foreign policy was hardly on the table, since the looming Civil War was the topic on everyone's mind. Yet even if something in foreign policy had come up during Lincoln's terms, he would have been smart and resourceful enough to learn what he needed to know, again, unlike certain pseudo-Texans I could mention.

[Padraig18]

92. Licoln handled foreign policy well.

He had Secretary Seward, and managed to keep Great Britain and France from entering the war, and also fended off the Mexican Emperor, maximillian.

A President can hire all the foreign policy experience he needs. What matters more is having good judgment and common sense, both of which Sen. Edwards has in abundance.:)

[krkaufman]

93. Lincoln only

I'd say NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Bill Clinton was NOT a great President. Just because he was a Democrat doesn't make him a great President. What did he accomplish relative to traditional Democratic values? Name it? Signed NAFTA? Welfare reform? Seriously! What? As for international accomplishments, I'll give him Kosovo, but what else? I'd say that he *did* allow his pride to get in the way of effective handling of foreign policy. Couldn't he have just admitted to the BJ from Monica, in order to let the chips fall and get back to the business of governing?

And what did Kennedy really do, other than give us LBJ? (whom we should be greatful for -- relative to the Great Society, and not so much Vietnam) Oh, wait, that's right, Kennedy was largely responsible for the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam, the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and the near nuclear annihilation of the Northern Hemisphere. I'll thank him for not blowing us up.

As for Lincoln, we *was* a great President, but then his main focus wasn't foreign threats, eh? His focus was domestic, and he rose to the occasion. Abe had spent many years in politics back in Illinois, though, so he wasn't an amateur politician.

And please note that NONE of the 3 men you mention entered office with 3 active foreign wars on their hands, unlike the winner this November will: Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terrorism.

Spin it however you like, but, simply put, Edwards is NOT qualified.


edit: typo

[Cuban_Liberal]

94. GREAT poll, Paddy!

:thumbsup:

[iamjoy]

95. A Few Points

1) COMPARISONS TO LINCOLN The states did not secede until after his election although many had vowed they would withdraw from the Union if the Republican won. Interesting fact - Lincoln won because the Democrats split their votes between a Northern Democrat (Douglas) and a Southern Democrat (Breckenridge). If you want to draw an electoral lesson from Lincoln it should be split the party, lose the country.

2) IS JOHN EDWARDS ELECTABLE Interesting that in states with open primaries, Republicans and independents vote for Edwards over Kerry.

3) WHAT DID CLINTON DO THAT WAS SO GREAT? Appoint Breyer and Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, repeal the gag rule (which Dubya promptly reinstated), FMLA, HIPAA

4) LET EDWARDS STAND ON HIS OWN...Yeah, it's nice that Lincoln, Kennedy, Clinton had limited/no foreign policy experience and were all "great" presidents. These are different times and John Edwards is a different man. What I do know about him is he is intelligent and charming. That would go a long way towards rebuilding our damaged relationships with the rest of the world.

5) LIBERAL IS THE ONLY INSULT THE REPUGNANTCANS NEED and they will use it against any Democrat. Trial Lawyer, Massachusetts, whatever. They've made Liberal a dirty word.

[Cuban_Liberal]

96. All valid points.

:hi: