Question for Republicans

[TruffleShuffle]

that'd be fine if there wasn't so much uproar from that side of the aisle when W was running for office. his being unqualified, however legitimate, was blown up into a huge issue and there's nary a peep this time around with the two dem candidates. blatant hypocrisy, but there's politics for you i guess.

 

Yeah, I was hearing almost non-stop how Bush rode his daddy's coattails to Washington and hadn't done anything to deserve it. He needed to earn a chance for the White House like Al Gore did. At the time, I liked Bush quite a bit (how things have changed) but admitted I was concerned with his lack of experience.

 

Now, the same people who bemoaned Bush's inexperience are saying Obama's inexperience is irrelevant. Just like with Bush, I'm concerned about Obama not having done much of anything at a national level - especially at such a crucial time.

 

to be fair, bush turned out to be completely unqualified for the job. we don't know that about obama yet.

[Banedon]

Now, the same people who bemoaned Bush's inexperience are saying Obama's inexperience is irrelevant.

 

Inexperience is not synonomous with incompetence.

[sneakypower]

that'd be fine if there wasn't so much uproar from that side of the aisle when W was running for office. his being unqualified, however legitimate, was blown up into a huge issue and there's nary a peep this time around with the two dem candidates. blatant hypocrisy, but there's politics for you i guess.

 

Yeah, I was hearing almost non-stop how Bush rode his daddy's coattails to Washington and hadn't done anything to deserve it. He needed to earn a chance for the White House like Al Gore did. At the time, I liked Bush quite a bit (how things have changed) but admitted I was concerned with his lack of experience.

 

Now, the same people who bemoaned Bush's inexperience are saying Obama's inexperience is irrelevant. Just like with Bush, I'm concerned about Obama not having done much of anything at a national level - especially at such a crucial time.

 

to be fair, bush turned out to be completely unqualified for the job. we don't know that about obama yet.

right, that's why I qualified my comment with "however legitimate". i just get irritated that it's the most inconceivable thing to have an unqualified president, unless it's an unqualified president in your party. then it's no big deal.

[TruffleShuffle]

right, that's why I qualified my comment with "however legitimate". i just get irritated that it's the most inconceivable thing to have an unqualified president, unless it's an unqualified president in your party. then it's no big deal.

 

one could argue that the roosevelts, eisenhower and jfk were marginally qualified to be president, and they're all generally regarded as having been good presidents. a lot of people thought bush would be a bad president because of his views and because his inexperience was largely due to immaturity (early life) and incompetence (middle aged life). It is possible for people to be inexperienced and unqualified, and inexperienced and qualified.

[dew1679666265]

Now, the same people who bemoaned Bush's inexperience are saying Obama's inexperience is irrelevant.

 

Inexperience is not synonomous with incompetence.

 

The arguments against Bush were not that he was incompetent, but that he was inexperienced. I didn't start hearing the incompetence crap until after he invaded Iraq and Dems got pissed off.

 

The argument was that Gore had more experience on the national level than Bush and, thus, Gore was more qualified for the presidency. Incompetence had little to nothing to do with the debate. The exact same argument many Obama detractors are making today.

[dew1679666265]

right, that's why I qualified my comment with "however legitimate". i just get irritated that it's the most inconceivable thing to have an unqualified president, unless it's an unqualified president in your party. then it's no big deal.

 

one could argue that the roosevelts, eisenhower and jfk were marginally qualified to be president, and they're all generally regarded as having been good presidents. a lot of people thought bush would be a bad president because of his views and because his inexperience was largely due to immaturity (early life) and incompetence (middle aged life). It is possible for people to be inexperienced and unqualified, and inexperienced and qualified.

 

Experience is part of what goes into making sure you're qualified for a job. It's not necessary to get hired (or in this case, elected), but it should and does help. Obama may appear qualified to you, but I'm not sure he is - just as I wasn't sure Bush was when he ran the first time.

 

Lack of experience was a legit criticism of Bush when he ran and it's a legit criticism of Obama now. Obviously, though, we won't know for sure until/unless he's elected who was right.

[biittner77]

What exactly makes someone qualified to be president anyway? The usual measure of this is having been a governor or VP but neither of those are the same as being President.

 

I would also argue that experience and qualified does not equal competence. Herbert Hoover, for example, was a well respected, intelligent businessman, organizer and engineer who won in a landslide. His presidency was pretty much a disaster.

[CuseCubFan69]

right, that's why I qualified my comment with "however legitimate". i just get irritated that it's the most inconceivable thing to have an unqualified president, unless it's an unqualified president in your party. then it's no big deal.

 

one could argue that the roosevelts, eisenhower and jfk were marginally qualified to be president, and they're all generally regarded as having been good presidents. a lot of people thought bush would be a bad president because of his views and because his inexperience was largely due to immaturity (early life) and incompetence (middle aged life). It is possible for people to be inexperienced and unqualified, and inexperienced and qualified.

 

Experience is part of what goes into making sure you're qualified for a job. It's not necessary to get hired (or in this case, elected), but it should and does help. Obama may appear qualified to you, but I'm not sure he is - just as I wasn't sure Bush was when he ran the first time.

 

Lack of experience was a legit criticism of Bush when he ran and it's a legit criticism of Obama now. Obviously, though, we won't know for sure until/unless he's elected who was right.

 

Bush had his father and Cheney to rely on though. I think having an inner circle like that would help an inexperienced person like Bush. Oh course many would claim that these guys may have been horrible influences but yet they were experienced influences he could depend on. I wonder who Obama would surround himself with and how that might effect the voters.

[Banedon]

Does McCain or Hillary have the experience for the Presidency though? They haven't been a Pres or a VP...which is the usual measure for those kind of things. I think that's where the Bush vs Gore argument really took place. Gore had been a VP for 8 years...the experience was tangible. The problem is that people aren't sure that Hillary has the experience, because does being First Lady equal Presidential experience? Maybe it does...but it's new ground for everyone.

[CuseCubFan69]

What exactly makes someone qualified to be president anyway? The usual measure of this is having been a governor or VP but neither of those are the same as being President.

 

I would also argue that experience and qualified does not equal competence. Herbert Hoover, for example, was a well respected, intelligent businessman, organizer and engineer who won in a landslide. His presidency was pretty much a disaster.

 

It seemed like Bush wanted to Steve Spurrior (sp) the job in the beginning and found out just like Steve did, it's a 30 hour a day 9 days a week job. You just never have enough time to do everything and something is always popping up.

 

When I look at someone that is running for President, I'm looking for a leader, can communicate with other parties, Can see the big picture and isn't worried about straw polls because he or she is doing the right thing. I'm not looking for somebody that was or pretends to be perfect and can admit it when they make or made a mistake. I'm not sure this could happen because when stupid piddly little things come up and the press makes a big thing out of it thus turning the voting public off of a particular candidate annoys me more than anything. These soundbites are a ridicules way of weeding out a qualified candidate imo.

[Skyballer]

I'd rather have the extreme liberal than the moderate conservative/liberal.

[Derwood]

I'd rather have the extreme liberal than the moderate conservative/liberal.

 

explain

[dew1679666265]

I'd rather have the extreme liberal than the moderate conservative/liberal.

 

And why did you support Romney if that's the case? He's more conservative than McCain, but is definitely not a strong conservative.

[dew1679666265]

Does McCain or Hillary have the experience for the Presidency though? They haven't been a Pres or a VP...which is the usual measure for those kind of things. I think that's where the Bush vs Gore argument really took place. Gore had been a VP for 8 years...the experience was tangible. The problem is that people aren't sure that Hillary has the experience, because does being First Lady equal Presidential experience? Maybe it does...but it's new ground for everyone.

 

I tend to look at some type of national experience when looking for experience. Hillary, while I think would be a bad president, was first lady for eight years and saw first hand the stresses and difficult decisions Bill had to make.

 

McCain, who I also think will be a poor president, has been in the Senate for quite some time and has experience governing on a national level.

 

It's an interesting question for sure.

[seanimal]

The president is the CEO of the government. Legislators are like the board members. I'd rather have someone with executive experience, i.e. governor, vp, etc., than "I bribe people to sign on to my stupid ideas" experience.

[Derwood]

The president is the CEO of the government. Legislators are like the board members. I'd rather have someone with executive experience, i.e. governor, vp, etc., than "I bribe people to sign on to my stupid ideas" experience.

 

did you copy and paste that from Mitt Romney's web page?

[Banedon]

The president is the CEO of the government. Legislators are like the board members. I'd rather have someone with executive experience, i.e. governor, vp, etc., than "I bribe people to sign on to my stupid ideas" experience.

 

Surplus IS a bad thing for a couple of reasons. One, politicians will think of things to spend it on. Two, it's simply poor management. It's just as inefficient to have a $1.5 b surplus as it is to have a 1.5 b deficit (this is why if you are a cashier at Hollywood Video your manager is just as mad when your drawer is over as he is when it is under: either way, you f'd up). Another reason would also be that it confuses people into thinking their politicians have any clue as to what they're doing. So really it's just a tag-line. Sounds good, seems good, really isn't all that good.

 

viewtopic.php?p=1653144#p1653144

 

As you pointed out in this argument, the point of a government isn't the same as a business. It's not to make money, it'...well...to govern. So why does business level executive experience matter for anything?

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

[TruffleShuffle]

if you're running a business and not making a surplus (i.e., a profit) then you're doing a pretty damn bad job.

[seanimal]

As you pointed out in this argument, the point of a government isn't the same as a business. It's not to make money, it'...well...to govern. So why does business level executive experience matter for anything?

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

I wasn't saying the government is like a business. I was analogizing the functions of each job. A chief executive officer is essentially the top manager at his company. That's what the president is to the federal bureaucracy: the top manager. I was in no way saying the functions of their respective organizations are analogous.

 

if you're running a business and not making a surplus (i.e., a profit) then you're doing a pretty damn bad job.

 

Any other obvious things you'd like to point out?

[TruffleShuffle]

if you're running a business and not making a surplus (i.e., a profit) then you're doing a pretty damn bad job.

 

Any other obvious things you'd like to point out?

 

i second cubinny's tampon joke

[seanimal]

also to no one's surprise.

[hardcorecubfan]

If you fram this question for super tues. many rep. in TX are voting Hillary

[jersey cubs fan]

if you're running a business and not making a surplus (i.e., a profit) then you're doing a pretty damn bad job.

 

not always true