<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>The Presidential Succession All Stars (Trees And Things)</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227</link>
<description>It's fantasy football season and that got me to thinking about lots of "Best Of" team combinations. The one that struck me most was coming up with the best people who have held the positions that sit within &lt;a href="http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0321150-00&amp;templatename=/article/article.html">US Presidential Succession&lt;/a>. I don't think we'll get much debate on greatest Secretary of the Interior of all time so I'm artificially cutting off debate at spot #8, Attorney General, which has held some </description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:21:07 EST</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:50:34 EST</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: The Presidential Succession All Stars</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#9</link>
<description>&lt;i>Ah but this is what I like best about Lincoln -- as juxtaposed to the current administration, Lincoln got rid of people who weren't performing and had no trouble with exercising his role as commander in chief.&lt;/i>&#13;&#10;&lt;p>&#13;&#10;The thing is, Lincoln did hold on</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:50:34 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>wetkarma: Re: The Presidential Succession All Stars</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#8</link>
<description>&lt;i>&lt;br>&#10;Also, Lincoln was arguably not a very good "war president" as he consistently interfered with military operations as well as appointed a series of disastrous generals before finally settling on Grant (indeed, one of his early favorites - George McC</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:57:06 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: The Presidential Succession All Stars</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#7</link>
<description>&lt;i>his 'New Deal' approach to government created much of the problems we have with domestic policy today.&lt;/i>&#13;&#10;&lt;p>&#13;&#10;The thing is, a lot of the issues with, for example, Social Security didn't come under FDR but rather under later Presidents and Congresses </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:38:44 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>wetkarma: Re: The Presidential Succession All Stars</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#6</link>
<description>My criteria is based on people who were good at their jobs while they held it, and whom could have arguably filled the role as president if necessary. &lt;p>&#10;&#10;&lt;ol>&#10;&lt;li value="1">President - America needs a war president at this particular moment in time, and </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:19:40 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: Fabulous Secretaries of State</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#5</link>
<description>That's one thing that really jumped out at me when looking at the Presidential succession list. Other than president pro tem of the senate, everybody else on the list has a position that's rather "sexy" to begin with. It's interesting that it's an elected </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:56:44 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: Fabulous Secretaries of State</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#4</link>
<description>On the note of "interesting" - what's up with President Pro Tempore of the Senate being third in line?  They should really re-think that.  Almost all of them have been duds, historically.  Some of them would have been absolute disasters (Strom Thurmond in </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:10:34 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Fabulous Secretaries of State</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#3</link>
<description>Secretary of State is an interesting one because it's the first on the list that is not attained through election. While Marshall is an obvious choice, I think Jefferson, Madison and Monroe all deserve consideration, especially given that they were eventua</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:07:07 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: OT</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#2</link>
<description>RE: &lt;a href="http://www.misssouthcarolinausa.com/aboutteentitleholder.html">Lauren Upton&lt;/a>:&#13;&#10;&lt;p>&#13;&#10;Yeah, but nmiguy, she got the conclusion right:&#13;&#10;&lt;p>&#13;&#10;&lt;i>so we will be able to build up our future for our children.&lt;/i>&#13;&#10;&lt;p>&#13;&#10;So, it doesn't really matter </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:51:01 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>port1080: Re: The Presidential Succession All Stars</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/8/15/185221/227#1</link>
<description>For my criteria, I went with people that were both effective at their positions and also made (or probably would have made) good presidents if they ever had the job thrust on them.&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;1- President&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;Franklin Roosevelt - say what you will about him, he han</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:26:35 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<textInput>
<title>Search Trees And Things</title>
<description></description>
<name>string</name>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/search/</link>
</textInput>

</channel>
</rss>