🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9/21/2011 12:39 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, Kristian, Adam says it never happened so... (note: later 
incumbents also refused to campaign, but after 1824 it did become possible).

-- 
smr