I was surfing today and came across an interesting site that had an article dealing with experince and past Presidents. The site was alligatorreport.wordpress.com
The article was titled,
Presidential Candidates: Is “experience” a real issue? Just look at Abraham Lincoln December 17, 2007
Here is an exerpt;
"To get an idea of whether experience is something to consider, lets take a look back at some of the past presidents in the US history:
James Buchanan: 29 years
Gerald Ford: 25 years
George H.W. Bush: 17 years
Richard Nixon: 14 years
Bill Clinton: 12 years
Ronald Reagan: 8 years
George W. Bush: 7 years
Abraham Lincoln: 2 years
George Washington: 0 years
Dwight Eisenhower: 0 years
The former president with the most experience, James Buchanan, who had 29 years of service as a representative, senator, ambassador and Secretary of State, is arguably the worst president in the US history. While Abraham Lincoln with only 2 years experience in the federal government is considered a national icon and, with George Washington, one of the most venerated leaders in our nation’s history. Going by this list, it is difficult to say that more experience is better.
Haven’t we learned in the past 7 years that you really don’t need experience to become president? I don’t think Bush is a disastrous president because he has little experience compared to other previous presidents… he’s just awfully stupid, unwilling to accept different viewpoints and ignorant of reality.
It’s more than experience that matters."
Well said in my opinion.
