Republican Candidates for the 2012 Nomination

[dps]

Let me try.  We have Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, and JFK.

(D, ~Q) = Carter, Bush 2
(J, Q) = Clinton, Nixon, LBJ
(J, ~Q) = Kennedy, ???

You did better than Peter Wiggins.  You also only got 3 right, but you were 3 for 6 whereas he was 3 for 10.

Keep guessing if you like.  I'm going to work (yeah, I'm working an overnight shift tonight), but I'll post my ratings sometime tomorrow.

Here's a small hint if you want to keep guessing--leave Bush2 out of it.  I'm not sure exactly where I rate him.

[Eddie Teach]

Let me try.  We have Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, and JFK.

(D, ~Q) = Carter, Bush 2
(J, Q) = Clinton, Nixon, LBJ
(J, ~Q) = Kennedy, ???

You did better than Peter Wiggins.  You also only got 3 right, but you were 3 for 6 whereas he was 3 for 10.

He made the same picks as me, except Carter for whom you tipped your hand between our guesses...

[Razgovory]

P.S. My avatar could kick your avatar's ass in fistacuffs you pansy Canuck.

Nixon's determination would carry him to victory.

That or drunkenness.  Which is what happened to real Nixon, not make believe Nixon.

[Sheilbh]

I think that the term you wanted to use was "Bible thumper", not "Bible basher".  A Bible thumper is someone who is always quoting the Bible and is in-your-face about his faith (and there is some connotation that he is hypocritical about it, too).  A Bible basher is someone who disparages the Bible and the faith it promulgates.

Bible basher's British for 'Bible thumper'.

[katmai]

I think that the term you wanted to use was "Bible thumper", not "Bible basher".  A Bible thumper is someone who is always quoting the Bible and is in-your-face about his faith (and there is some connotation that he is hypocritical about it, too).  A Bible basher is someone who disparages the Bible and the faith it promulgates.

Bible basher's British for 'Bible thumper'.

Damn pommies fucking up the english language!

[Ed Anger]

I think that the term you wanted to use was "Bible thumper", not "Bible basher".  A Bible thumper is someone who is always quoting the Bible and is in-your-face about his faith (and there is some connotation that he is hypocritical about it, too).  A Bible basher is someone who disparages the Bible and the faith it promulgates.

Bible basher's British for 'Bible thumper'.

Damn pommies fucking up the english language!

Is it a candy or a sweet?

[Duque de Bragança]

I think that the term you wanted to use was "Bible thumper", not "Bible basher".  A Bible thumper is someone who is always quoting the Bible and is in-your-face about his faith (and there is some connotation that he is hypocritical about it, too).  A Bible basher is someone who disparages the Bible and the faith it promulgates.

Bible basher's British for 'Bible thumper'.

Damn pommies fucking up the english language!

Not according to the self-proclaimed satanist Glen Benton vox of the (in)famous US Death Metal band Deicide

cf.
Track listing

   1. "Bible Basher" – 2:23
   2. "Forever Hate You" – 3:08
   3. "Standing in the Flames" – 3:32
   4. "Remnant of a Hopeless Path" – 2:58
   5. "The Gift That Keeps on Giving" – 3:02
   6. "Halls of Warship" – 3:03
   7. "Suffer Again" – 2:18
   8. "Worst Enemy" – 2:47
   9. "Apocalyptic Fear" – 3:21
  10. "Refusal of Penance" – 4:34


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insineratehymn

Emphasis mine 

[Syt]

Hans in a nutshell:

[dps]

OK, here's my take on the recent Presidents FWIW:

Decent Person, Not Qualified:  Carter, Obama

Qualified, but Jackass:  Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon

Jackass, not Qualified:  Clinton, Bush2

Decent Person, Qualified:  Ford, Reagan, Bush1

Note that "qualified" isn't the same as "good President".  I don't think Ford was a particularly good President, but with all the years he spent in Congress, I don't think you can reasonably call him unqualified for the office.

Feel free to pick this apart;  it's mostly subjective anyway.  And there are few that I'm not sure exactly how I think they should be rated anyway--Bush2 in particular, but also Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, and to a lesser extent, Bush1.

[Eddie Teach]

So I actually got 5 1/2 right(Obama, Johnson, Nixon, Bush I, Reagan, 1/2 Ford), not 3 as you claimed earlier. 

[AnchorClanker]

OK, here's my take on the recent Presidents FWIW:

Decent Person, Not Qualified:  Carter, Obama

Qualified, but Jackass:  Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon

Jackass, not Qualified:  Clinton, Bush2

Decent Person, Qualified:  Ford, Reagan, Bush1

Note that "qualified" isn't the same as "good President".  I don't think Ford was a particularly good President, but with all the years he spent in Congress, I don't think you can reasonably call him unqualified for the office.

Feel free to pick this apart;  it's mostly subjective anyway.  And there are few that I'm not sure exactly how I think they should be rated anyway--Bush2 in particular, but also Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, and to a lesser extent, Bush1.

I find it hard to disagree with this list - but would not Lincoln and Eisenhower be "unqualified" as well?

[AnchorClanker]

I have a hard time understanding how anybody can see Palin as anything other than a reality-TV character.
I also have a hard time with Romney - is he a pragmatist, or not?
Huckabee, while I see his charm, doesn't convince me that he is of proper national stature...
Jindal... gimme a break
Thune... likewise

The GOP has some hard decisions to make if they are to make a serious run in 2012

[dps]

OK, here's my take on the recent Presidents FWIW:

Decent Person, Not Qualified:  Carter, Obama

Qualified, but Jackass:  Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon

Jackass, not Qualified:  Clinton, Bush2

Decent Person, Qualified:  Ford, Reagan, Bush1

Note that "qualified" isn't the same as "good President".  I don't think Ford was a particularly good President, but with all the years he spent in Congress, I don't think you can reasonably call him unqualified for the office.

Feel free to pick this apart;  it's mostly subjective anyway.  And there are few that I'm not sure exactly how I think they should be rated anyway--Bush2 in particular, but also Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, and to a lesser extent, Bush1.

I find it hard to disagree with this list - but would not Lincoln and Eisenhower be "unqualified" as well?

Probably, particularly Lincoln.  That's why I made the explicit comment that saying that someone was qualified isn't the same as saying that they were a good President.  The converse is also true--someone can be seen as unqualified upon taking the office, but turn out to be a good President.  I see "qualified" in this context as meaning, roughly, that you could answer "yes" to the question, "did this person, prior to becoming President, have sufficient service at high levels of government that would lead a reasonably intelligent, well-informed person to feel that they had enough experience to handle the responsibilties of the office?".  Obviously, sometimes that's going to be a judgement call.  Clearly, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford had tons of experience in the Federal government.  Nixon didn't have nearly the length of time in Congress that they did, but he spent 8 years as the most active and influential Vice-President in our history (up to that point).  Before becoming President, Bush the Elder had never held any elective office except that of Vice-President (and let's face it, no one is elected Vice-President in their own right, they just get the job because of their running mate) but he had lots of experience in appointed postions.  Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush the Younger were all governors, but being Governor of California is a tougher job than holding the same office in Georgia, Arkansas, or Texas, and Reagan also had several years as a highly visible leader of the conservative movement on a national level, whereas Carter and Clinton were essentially unknow on a national level before their Presidential campaigns, and Bush was better know for being the son of a former President and for owning the Texas Rangers baseball team than for being Governor.  Kennedy had a decent amount of experience in Congress, a lot more than Obama (and Lincoln had even less than the current President).

I'd say Eisenhower was more qualified (or less unqualified) than Lincoln because his position as highly-ranking general in WWII was closer to a political job than a normal military command (that is, his responsibilities and duties were in many ways closer to that of a executive or diplomat than that of an actual front-line commander) but he hadn't been particularly high-ranking before the war.

[Barrister]

I have a hard time understanding how anybody can see Palin as anything other than a reality-TV character.
I also have a hard time with Romney - is he a pragmatist, or not?
Huckabee, while I see his charm, doesn't convince me that he is of proper national stature...
Jindal... gimme a break
Thune... likewise

The GOP has some hard decisions to make if they are to make a serious run in 2012

What does "proper national stature" mean though?  Did Clinton or Carter, or even Reagan, have 'sufficient national stature'?  All of them were merely former governors, same as Huck or Jindal, or even Romney (although he has a few other lines on his resume).

Running for President can sink an awful lot of men (and women), but the very race can also build national stature.  Who was Jesse Jackson before 1984, for example?

[Eddie Teach]

Running for President can sink an awful lot of men (and women), but the very race can also build national stature.  Who was Jesse Jackson before 1984, for example?

Wasn't he with MLK when he got shot?