JJM wrote:InkL0sed wrote:JJM wrote:InkL0sed wrote:Oh, excuse me. Just seven years. I'm sorry, that seems to have completely invalidated my point.
Wikipedia practically has an entire essay on what he did as Secretary of Commerce.
Commerce was considered a minor Cabinet post, with limited and somewhat vaguely defined responsibilities.
But Hoover aimed to change that, envisioning the Commerce Department as the hub of the nation's growth and stability. He demanded from Harding, and received, authority to help coordinate economic affairs throughout the government. He created a great many sub-departments and committees, overseeing and regulating everything from manufacturing statistics, the census, and radio to air travel. In some instances, he "seized" control of responsibilities from other Cabinet departments when he deemed that they were not carrying out their responsibilities well enough. Hoover became one of the most visible men in the country, often overshadowing Presidents Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Washington wags were soon referring to Hoover as "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else!"
As secretary and later as President, Hoover revolutionized the relations between business and government. Rejecting the adversarial stance of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, he sought to make the Commerce Department a powerful service organization, empowered to forge cooperative voluntary partnerships between government and business. This philosophy is often called "associationalism."
So he did have other accomplishments as Secretary of Commerce but Calvin Coolidge was quiet influential and where was his leadership experience.
Being one of the most influential men in the country isn't leadership experience? How do you define leadership experience, then?
In any case, I don't really see what point you're making. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're wrong. Seven years as even a minor member of the Cabinet is nothing to dismiss out of hand, and he was no minor member of the Cabinet. I don't really know how influential Coolidge was (although I seem to remember him basically doing nothing as President), but the point is that he was just a step below President for almost a decade. It's absurd to just dismiss that.
Hoover had some experience but the Presidency was his first elected office. Hoover served under Harding and Coolidge so I can't say that I would call that leadership experience. Leader ship experience for would be for example: Obama was president of harvard law school (which to me dosen't mean much), Bush (the 2nd) and Clinton were governors and Bush (the 1st) was Vice president. Also when you said Calvin Coolidge did nothing that is what made him great. Coolidge's economic policy was to let the government interfere with the economy as little as possible and let everyone make there own money and it worked. Under Coolidge's administration the countries economic growth rate was record high (7% a year). He paid off over 5 trillion dollars of debt in 6 years.
Your logic is so convoluted it's not even funny.
1) By your logic, Vice President wouldn't be "leadership experience" either, since the Vice President serves under the President, as you put it. In fact, the Vice President has even less power than any Cabinet member (since he pretty has none), so it makes even less sense.
2) Cabinet members are leaders. Period. That they "serve under" the President doesn't mean shit. So do all the generals in the military; does that mean they aren't leaders either? The fact of the matter is that any Cabinet member has tremendous power and influence (ie, they lead), at least as much and almost always more than any Congressman, and Hoover wasn't just any Cabinet member. Hoover was the most important and powerful (ie, he led other people a lot, including the Presidents he "served under") Cabinet member in two administrations. None of this is really up for debate, as it's fact. Unless of course you redefine "leadership experience" to mean either president, vice president, or governor.
Not to mention that Hoover was the head of a large corporation before he entered politics, so if Obama's being president of the Harvard Law Review counts as at least some leadership experience, then being CEO of a corporation definitely counts for something.
3) Stop it with the elected office nonsense. What does it matter whether he was elected or not before he became President? That has no bearing on his experience. That just means he wasn't popular enough for it.
Re Coolidge: yeah, and the Great Depression happening right after he left office had nothing to do with his economic policies, of course. Seems he let his Commerce Secretary lead too much (see what I did there)?