what us senator would make the best president?

[Inmate Trump]

Evan Bayh, then Joe Lieberman.

[skybridge]

Feingold. Maybe Sanders.

[Soaring Eagle]

Best:
Olympia Snowe
Barack Obama
Jim Webb
Carl Levin

Worst:
Joe Lieberman

[adam]

Best:  Russ Feingold.  No one else would come close.
Worst:  Joe Lieberman/James Inhofe/Ted Stevens.

Of all of the conservatives in the senate that you could have hammered in this thread...you chose to smack someone in the face that has voted party line Democrat on virtually every issue.

So, (based on your list) would it be fair to say that if given the choice between Santorum and Lieberman...you would take Santorum?

[nini2287]

The USA is conservative? News to me. On every issue Americans are generally liberal.

Care to elaborate?

[GOP = Terrorists]

Of all of the conservatives in the senate that you could have hammered in this thread...you chose to smack someone in the face that has voted party line Democrat on virtually every issue.

I voted for him because he lies more than the rest of the Senate combined.  Every word out of his mouth is a lie.  Additionally he doesn't vote party line Dem.  He votes like a New England Republican but when it comes to Foriegn policy he votes like George W Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since people were listing Sanders I was under the impression my choice was Casey.  And yes if it was Lieberman vs Casey I'd take Casey.  I think Santorum is a total frigging nut but he is probably more honest than Lieberman. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Tie between Russ Feingold and Chuck Hagel (though I'd personally prefer Russ), but it will never happen

[True Democrat]

John McCain or Lindsey Graham

[© tweed]

Ted Kennedy

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ted Kennedy

The alcohol lobby supports him

[Gabu]

I love Russ Feingold too, but he is more liberal than Kerry, which just won't work in this conservative country of ours.

But the question was "who would make the best president", not "who would make the best candidate".  The initial post said to forget about electability.

[Conan]

The USA is conservative? News to me. On every issue Americans are generally liberal.

Care to elaborate?

Go to polling report. Read the polls for liberal platforms. They are supported greatly.

[Platypus]

Feingold, or ones of the non-stars

[Bacon King]

Of all of the conservatives in the senate that you could have hammered in this thread...you chose to smack someone in the face that has voted party line Democrat on virtually every issue.

I voted for him because he lies more than the rest of the Senate combined.  Every word out of his mouth is a lie.  Additionally he doesn't vote party line Dem.  He votes like a New England Republican but when it comes to Foriegn policy he votes like George W Bush.

Examples of each of your assertions, please?

[jokerman]

I really don't think Russ Feingold has the foreign policy or national security experience to be President.  I think he's an excellent member of the Senate, but I wouldn't be comfortable with him as our commander in chief.

What is he lacking in those areas that, say....... George Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan were not?

Bill Clinton was a genius, who had a natural ability to deal in international situations, really.  He's a natural diplomat.  Feingold is a natural ideolouge and fighter (I'm not criticizing him, he plays a good role keeping the Senate in check).

Reagan had a vision that happened to be very good foreign policy wise at the time.  His lack of experience though indeed did show itself at times, but it was seldom.

George Bush indeed had no foreign policy experience or defense experience, and in those areas has been perhaps the most incompetent President in history.  Why would we want to risk terrible incompetence just because we just had it?

[Deano963]

I really don't think Russ Feingold has the foreign policy or national security experience to be President.  I think he's an excellent member of the Senate, but I wouldn't be comfortable with him as our commander in chief.

What is he lacking in those areas that, say....... George Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan were not?

Bill Clinton was a genius, who had a natural ability to deal in international situations, really.  He's a natural diplomat.  Feingold is a natural ideolouge and fighter (I'm not criticizing him, he plays a good role keeping the Senate in check).

Reagan had a vision that happened to be very good foreign policy wise at the time.  His lack of experience though indeed did show itself at times, but it was seldom.

George Bush indeed had no foreign policy experience or defense experience, and in those areas has been perhaps the most incompetent President in history.  Why would we want to risk terrible incompetence just because we just had it?

Absolutely none of that answers my question. In fact, you only reinforced my point.

[Yates]

Chuck Grassley.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Lamar Alexander
Joe Lieberman

[jokerman]

I really don't think Russ Feingold has the foreign policy or national security experience to be President.  I think he's an excellent member of the Senate, but I wouldn't be comfortable with him as our commander in chief.

What is he lacking in those areas that, say....... George Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan were not?

Bill Clinton was a genius, who had a natural ability to deal in international situations, really.  He's a natural diplomat.  Feingold is a natural ideolouge and fighter (I'm not criticizing him, he plays a good role keeping the Senate in check).

Reagan had a vision that happened to be very good foreign policy wise at the time.  His lack of experience though indeed did show itself at times, but it was seldom.

George Bush indeed had no foreign policy experience or defense experience, and in those areas has been perhaps the most incompetent President in history.  Why would we want to risk terrible incompetence just because we just had it?

Absolutely none of that answers my question. In fact, you only reinforced my point.

O RLY?

[MasterJedi]

I really don't think Russ Feingold has the foreign policy or national security experience to be President.  I think he's an excellent member of the Senate, but I wouldn't be comfortable with him as our commander in chief.

What is he lacking in those areas that, say....... George Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan were not?

Bill Clinton was a genius, who had a natural ability to deal in international situations, really.  He's a natural diplomat.  Feingold is a natural ideolouge and fighter (I'm not criticizing him, he plays a good role keeping the Senate in check).

Reagan had a vision that happened to be very good foreign policy wise at the time.  His lack of experience though indeed did show itself at times, but it was seldom.

George Bush indeed had no foreign policy experience or defense experience, and in those areas has been perhaps the most incompetent President in history.  Why would we want to risk terrible incompetence just because we just had it?

Absolutely none of that answers my question. In fact, you only reinforced my point.

O RLY?

You shouldn't talk to trolls.