🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2011-09-21, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>>On 9/20/2011 5:24 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>smr<me@shawnritchie.com>  wrote:
>>>>On 9/20/2011 12:21 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>>So you claim those times existed, without having known them, or knowing
>>>>>anybody who knew them.
>
>>>>There's this thing called "history", which allows people to learn about
>>>>the details and processes that existed in times other than their own.
>
>>>So you think history means misrepresentation and fiction.
>
>>So you're denying that incumbent presidents used to not campaign on 
>>principle?
>
>>Okay. Enjoy living with some past that never happened.
>
> Shithead, here's that quote of yours you keep denying:
>
>         We should go back to the old days where the incumbent didn't even
>         campaign because it was considered beneath the office. You just
>         voted on his record.
>
> You claimed campaigning was beneath the dignity of an incumbent. If the
> incumbent was popular and had a good record, that's what he ran on.
>
> Is there a way for you to be any more stupid?

It is well documented that before 1824, the incumbent president did not 
campaign, period. The lack of true popular vote was contributing factor, to 
be sure, but it was just not done. Heck, even the opposing candidate tended 
to avoid campaigning, letting the public come to them. Again, this was to 
avoid sullying the grand office.

I caught a fascinating exhibit on presedential campaigns at the Lincoln 
Museum in Springfield a few years back. This might have been the part that 
stuck with me the most.

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com