Post by: Manedwolf on November 01, 2007, 10:40:41 AM
No flag, fine. No hand over heart for the anthem?
Just whom does he have allegiance to?
Post by: jefnvk on November 01, 2007, 10:51:44 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 01, 2007, 10:53:52 AM
Just whom does he have allegiance to?
Prolly thinks he's at a baseball game.
--Len.
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 01, 2007, 11:33:38 AM
That said....
Prove to me that the Anthem is actually running in that pic. Hillary and the other woman in the back are looking in a different direction than whats his face in the suit. Is the Anthem just starting, just ending, or what?
Post by: Tuco on November 01, 2007, 01:04:25 PM
Snopes says "Yes, it's true."
No further comment, talk amongst yerselfs.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 01, 2007, 01:40:14 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2007, 01:47:53 PM
Post by: Ben on November 01, 2007, 03:55:28 PM
Post by: jefnvk on November 01, 2007, 04:39:21 PM
Post by: Fly320s on November 02, 2007, 02:02:03 AM
Or his heart is in his crotch.
That was Bill Clinton.
Post by: HankB on November 02, 2007, 07:22:44 AM
Taken individually, the things B.H.O. has been saying and doing are trivial . . . but taken as a whole, they're beginning to build to a rather, well, unsavory portrait of a man who wants to be President.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 02, 2007, 07:27:15 AM
Isn't B. Hussein Obama the same guy who decided he didn't like wearing an American flag pin on his lapel?
Taken individually, the things B.H.O. has been saying and doing are trivial . . . but taken as a whole, they're beginning to build to a rather, well, unsavory portrait of a man who wants to be President.
Taken individually, the things B.H.O. has been saying and doing are trivial . . . but taken as a whole, they're beginning to build to a rather, well, unsavory portrait of a man who wants to be President.
This little interview bit today, covered even in the NYT, gave me pause. He sounds like a Blame America sort from Daily Kos or something...
Quote
...he asserted that Irans support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administrations policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.
Excuse me?!
Let me get that straight. Iran is supporting terrorists in Iraq because of American aggression towards them making them anxious. Right. That's what I thought he said! 
Post by: wooderson on November 02, 2007, 07:48:21 PM
Post by: wooderson on November 02, 2007, 07:49:00 PM
Post by: Paddy on November 02, 2007, 08:02:54 PM
Though I guess it's a legitimate question as to whether Bush hates America (like Obama), or if he's just not sure where the heart is located.
Not that complicated. He's just a freaking idiot.
Post by: Nitrogen on November 02, 2007, 09:39:10 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 03, 2007, 03:20:57 AM
Though I guess it's a legitimate question as to whether Bush hates America (like Obama), or if he's just not sure where the heart is located.
Not that complicated. He's just a freaking idiot.
Who managed to become POTUS. Twice.
Love him or hate him, he's accomplished more than you ever will.
Post by: Werewolf on November 03, 2007, 04:10:19 AM
There's plenty of legitimate reasons why Obama shouldn't be President, and I think we should focus on those.
And disrespecting the flag and anthem of the country one wants to lead is not a legitimate reason for voters to consider that a disqualifying attribute?Puhleeeeez...
I suppose one could make the argument that the president doesn't have to love the USA but he or she ought to at least respect it. If neither then it is reasonable to assume that their leadership if elected would be less than beneficial to the country.
Post by: Paddy on November 03, 2007, 05:50:42 AM
Quote
Who managed to become POTUS. Twice.
Yes, because suckers like me voted for him. Twice.
Quote
Love him or hate him, he's accomplished more than you ever will.
Yes. He's done more damage than I could 'accomplish' in 1000 lifetimes.
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 03, 2007, 09:03:16 AM
Quote
Who managed to become POTUS. Twice.
Yes, because suckers like me voted for him. Twice.
Quote
Love him or hate him, he's accomplished more than you ever will.
Yes. He's done more damage than I could 'accomplish' in 1000 lifetimes.
Claiming he's stupid/dumb/a moron/an idiot is a weak argument based solely on emotion and not on fact.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2007, 02:03:21 PM
You can hear it on the video, which is at the Snopes link above.
Post by: Tuco on November 03, 2007, 03:57:39 PM
The anthem is, at it's base, a song. The song represents quite a bit, but a song, music and lyric, is an art form ...here we go...
Quote
...the terrible performance of the Anthem.....
Check this out, and reconsider your statement from non-emotional viewpoint (by non-emotional, i mean leave artistic judgment aside).
http://www.josefeliciano.com/downloads/starspangledbanner.mp3
The linked performance, before game 5 of the '68 world series, created quite an uproar. So did the performance 8 months later by a
I submit, that true respect for one's flag and country would have one stand and place ones hand over one's heart regardless of the quality of the performance.
For example, the Hillary-looking woman in the photo above.
Post by: Tuco on November 03, 2007, 03:58:48 PM
Post by: grislyatoms on November 03, 2007, 04:06:42 PM
Though I guess it's a legitimate question as to whether Bush hates America (like Obama), or if he's just not sure where the heart is located.
Not that complicated. He's just a freaking idiot.
Bachelor's Degree in History from Yale. MBA from Harvard.
I wasn't aware Yale and Harvard awarded degrees to idiots.
Post by: Paddy on November 03, 2007, 04:33:07 PM
Quote
Bachelor's Degree in History from Yale. MBA from Harvard.
I wasn't aware Yale and Harvard awarded degrees to idiots.
I wasn't aware Yale and Harvard awarded degrees to idiots.
You have a point there. Of course that was before his alcohol and cocaine addictions. Maybe that's what turned him into an idiot.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2007, 08:04:44 PM
I find performances such as the one Obama suffered through, and the Feliciano hatchet-job, to be disgusting hijackings of our national anthem as a showcase for a gimmicky, look-at-me style of singing.
Post by: wooderson on November 03, 2007, 08:21:14 PM
Quote
So did the performance 8 months later by a two tour vet playing an upside down stratocater in rural new york.
Er... I believe Hendrix was out within a year due to his rather... idiosyncratic response to military requirements.
Post by: jeepmor on November 04, 2007, 02:40:52 AM
Post by: Tuco on November 04, 2007, 04:24:49 AM
Er... I believe Hendrix was out within a year due to his rather... idiosyncratic response to military requirements.
Point taken, wooderson. You are correct, I am guilty of perpetuating hearsay without research.
HOWEVER, how the anthem is sung or played is not relevant to the original post. The respect given our national anthem is.
and dearest fistful, I don't even particularly like FSKey's arrangement of the idolatry-laden hymn, but shoot, it's our national anthem, and I will respect it.
Soakers
Post by: Tuco on November 04, 2007, 04:27:57 AM
Post by: Tuco on November 04, 2007, 04:33:41 AM
Soakers, battling a fever.
This must be kinda like posting drunk.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 07, 2007, 07:20:33 PM
I think Obama is a twit. A socialist who thinks he deserves the white house because he's black and by george, blacks are due a run at the white house, right?
That said....
That said....
Can you prove that? I dont think he is a socialist in the true sense of the word. He is a democrat but I dont believe he is a socialist.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 07, 2007, 07:25:50 PM
Two Cold, I was not being entirely serious, man. It was a really bad performance, but I guess you must have thought I was really angry about it. I'm not. By now, we've all gotten used to the sorry excuse for music now known as R & B, and hearing the anthem being sung murdered in that style.
I find performances such as the one Obama suffered through, and the Feliciano hatchet-job, to be disgusting hijackings of our national anthem as a showcase for a gimmicky, look-at-me style of singing.
Not to mention country music. I cant stand a bunch of whiney fat hill-billies just crooning over the fact there girlfriend left them for her brother Cleetus. I find performances such as the one Obama suffered through, and the Feliciano hatchet-job, to be disgusting hijackings of our national anthem as a showcase for a gimmicky, look-at-me style of singing.
But all in all I dont think we should be forced to stand for the anthem anymore as this country has been hijacked by morons.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2007, 01:56:45 AM
RE: Country music
When I mentioned R&B, the current batch of "country music" was included. The two are remarkably similar, these days.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 08, 2007, 06:59:54 AM
Can you prove that? I dont think he is a socialist in the true sense of the word. He is a democrat but I dont believe he is a socialist.
By my definition of the word, he is a socialist. But then again, I understand many people's confusion about Hussein Obama. After all, when you strip down the candy talk, there isn't much left to him.
If this guy were white, nobody would even pay attention to him. He wouldn't even register on the Dem radar. He is too young, he has extremely limited experience, he blabbers vague disjoint things with a wishful melancholic air. If you are invested in a company, and its new CEO has only the pigmentation of his skin going on for him, you'd be a fool not to dump the stock shouting Cramer's "Sell, sell, sell!" Yet, so many people are enamored by this mediocrity and can't wait to put him at the controls of the single most powerful posting in the world. It boggles the mind!
But the one thing that really presses my buttons with this guy is all the fannying about and candyass bullshit about "healing" and "unity". There can be no healing and unity with a bunch of abominable, despicable traitors that undermine the country, its interests, its troops, and its national security in exchange for a partisan political gain. There can be no healing or unity with socialist globalists that want to tax us and sacrifice American sovereignty and prosperity to build their world government and socialist kumbaya. There can be no healing or unity with statist dirtbags that want to limit individual freedoms and disarm the populace, so that it is more mouldable to their ideological aims.
There are roughly two worldviews - the nationalist conservatives and the internationalist socialists. There can be no compromise, no "healing" or "unity" or any of that garbage between them. One will win and the other will die. That is all that there is to it.
Finally, it is quite ironic that somebody who runs as a "uniter" spends so much time blabbering about race and how, supposedly, divided we are by it. The last thing we need is a Sharptonian racist demagogue in the Oval Office.
Post by: Paddy on November 08, 2007, 07:12:32 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on November 08, 2007, 10:37:11 AM
Can you prove that? I dont think he is a socialist in the true sense of the word. He is a democrat but I dont believe he is a socialist.
By my definition of the word, he is a socialist. But then again, I understand many people's confusion about Hussein Obama. After all, when you strip down the candy talk, there isn't much left to him.
If this guy were white, nobody would even pay attention to him. He wouldn't even register on the Dem radar. He is too young, he has extremely limited experience, he blabbers vague disjoint things with a wishful melancholic air. If you are invested in a company, and its new CEO has only the pigmentation of his skin going on for him, you'd be a fool not to dump the stock shouting Cramer's "Sell, sell, sell!" Yet, so many people are enamored by this mediocrity and can't wait to put him at the controls of the single most powerful posting in the world. It boggles the mind!
But the one thing that really presses my buttons with this guy is all the fannying about and candyass bullshit about "healing" and "unity". There can be no healing and unity with a bunch of abominable, despicable traitors that undermine the country, its interests, its troops, and its national security in exchange for a partisan political gain. There can be no healing or unity with socialist globalists that want to tax us and sacrifice American sovereignty and prosperity to build their world government and socialist kumbaya. There can be no healing or unity with statist dirtbags that want to limit individual freedoms and disarm the populace, so that it is more mouldable to their ideological aims.
There are roughly two worldviews - the nationalist conservatives and the internationalist socialists. There can be no compromise, no "healing" or "unity" or any of that garbage between them. One will win and the other will die. That is all that there is to it.
Finally, it is quite ironic that somebody who runs as a "uniter" spends so much time blabbering about race and how, supposedly, divided we are by it. The last thing we need is a Sharptonian racist demagogue in the Oval Office.
So please define socialist.
I could argue the only thing Fred Thompson has going for him is his religion and the fact he is a Southerner. What does that have anything to do with this? Either you can argue about his politics or not but discrediting him for the fact he is black is pretty low.
The man is a political monster. The fact that he is black is only a bonus feather in his cap. While I disagree with him I think that he is probably the second or third biggest threat to this country behind Fred Thompson.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2007, 12:40:40 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 08, 2007, 12:56:49 PM
discrediting him for the fact he is black is pretty low.
Where did I discredit him for being black? I criticize him for being incompetent, not for being black.
I will repeat the question: If he weren't black, would we hear anything about this guy, would he even be in the picture? What has he done that deserves attention? What are his qualifications for the job? Forgetting about his pigmentation, how many like him can you produce within the Dem party?
The guy is completely unremarkable, an unproven quantity. As much as I despise Dems in general, I can see a better argument for somebody like Bayeh, who is more intelligent, more articulate, has more experience, more practical views, and more of a centrist. If skin is no issue, I would like to see arguments why the Dems would run Hussein instead of Bayeh.
If you had a ton of stock in a major company, and Obama became its CEO, would you keep or dump your stock? Be honest. If you would dump the stock, you cannot support him for POTUS.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 08, 2007, 01:08:55 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 08, 2007, 01:16:43 PM
Your saying the only reason he is there is because he is black.
Is it true or not? If it is true, how is it "low" to say that? Only if it is not true, I can see how it can be low to say it, as a means of knocking him down undeservedly. Since I believe it is true, I am being fair.
Post by: wooderson on November 08, 2007, 04:25:19 PM
"By my definition, George Bush is a neo-fascist. Sure, his stated beliefs and policy positions don't, in fact, mirror those of contemporary or historical fascists - but by my definition..."
Post by: Werewolf on November 09, 2007, 07:44:10 AM
Your saying the only reason he is there is because he is black.
Yep! That's it! The one and only reason.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2007, 01:13:58 PM
Your saying the only reason he is there is because he is black.
I think many people have that feeling, (Joe Biden, for one) because he seems to have come out of nowhere. I can't think of any other reasons why he became an instant celebrity, other than he is Black, and seems more likable than the Charlie Wrangels and Cynthia McKinneys. But, then, I haven't followed him very closely, so I could be missing something.
Post by: Paddy on November 09, 2007, 02:28:21 PM
That, of course, qualifies him to hold the highest office in the land. 
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 10, 2007, 01:42:18 PM
Your saying the only reason he is there is because he is black.
I think many people have that feeling, (Joe Biden, for one) because he seems to have come out of nowhere. I can't think of any other reasons why he became an instant celebrity, other than he is Black, and seems more likable than the Charlie Wrangels and Cynthia McKinneys. But, then, I haven't followed him very closely, so I could be missing something.
Still waiting on this one.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 10, 2007, 02:21:29 PM
Still waiting on this one.
Don't hold your breath.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 10, 2007, 03:15:38 PM
Your saying the only reason he is there is because he is black.
I think many people have that feeling, (Joe Biden, for one) because he seems to have come out of nowhere. I can't think of any other reasons why he became an instant celebrity, other than he is Black, and seems more likable than the Charlie Wrangels and Cynthia McKinneys. But, then, I haven't followed him very closely, so I could be missing something.
He's also a product of the Daley machine in Illinois, which is even more reason to distrust him.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 10, 2007, 08:43:32 PM
Your saying the only reason he is there is because he is black.
I think many people have that feeling, (Joe Biden, for one) because he seems to have come out of nowhere. I can't think of any other reasons why he became an instant celebrity, other than he is Black, and seems more likable than the Charlie Wrangels and Cynthia McKinneys. But, then, I haven't followed him very closely, so I could be missing something.
Still waiting on this one.
Well he is intelligent, charismatic, and exudes a great personality. He is young and well educated. He is also not experienced as a politician which may work in his favor. But he is also a hardcore leftist which appeals to a great many people here in the USA. Hence his personality. If it was only because he is black then I think others might have gotten the kind of support he has gotten.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2007, 08:56:47 AM
Post by: wooderson on November 11, 2007, 08:58:16 AM
Post by: RocketMan on November 11, 2007, 12:39:04 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2007, 02:09:35 PM
I'm curious as to whether y'all applied this 'lack of experience' judgement to Dubya in 2000.
Huh? You're comparing six years as governor of a big state with a big economy, to two years as a Senator. You would naturally not expect the former to appear quite as short on experience, not to mention that Bush is a military veteran.
But someone must have been asking, though. Don't you recall all the talk about how Cheney would add "gravitas" to the ticket?
Post by: wooderson on November 11, 2007, 02:18:28 PM
Quote
Huh? You're comparing six years as governor of a big state with a big economy, to two years as a Senator.
And almost a decade in state government, yes.Weak governor of a big state where he has essentially no control over the economy and had to rely on Bob Bullock (Dem Lt Gov) to get anything done, yeah.
Quote
You would naturally not expect the former to appear quite as short on experience, not to mention that Bush is a military veteran.
No, I think they both appear equally short on experience - not that I even know what 'experience is supposed to constitute - nobody seems to have a definite standard. Tends to depend on how much you like or dislike the candidate.Military veteran, huh? coughcough Not to get into that particular topic, but you can say that Ike being a veteran helped him politically - Dubya's 'experience' gave him no bounce in the 'experience' realm.
Out of curiosity, have you ever found yourself describing Al Gore as a military veteran?
Quote
But someone must have asking, though. Don't you recall all the talk about how Cheney would add "gravitas" to the ticket?
Many people were asking, of course. But what I've asked is whether or not those here who hold Obama's experience (or lack of) against him, did they do the same for Dubya?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2007, 02:32:23 PM
Quote
Huh? You're comparing six years as governor of a big state with a big economy, to two years as a Senator.
And almost a decade in state government, yes. You're really missing the point. Governors are perceived as having "executive experience." Senators not so much. That is why governors fare better in Presidential races.
Quote
Weak governor of a big state where he has essentially no control over the economy and had to rely on Bob Bullock (Dem Lt Gov) to get anything done, yeah.
He mentioned this throughout his campaign, as proof that he had experience working with legislative bodies, as an executive. That is something legislators like Obama cannot claim. Quote
Military veteran, huh? coughcough Not to get into that particular topic, but you can say that Ike being a veteran helped him politically - Dubya's 'experience' gave him no bounce in the 'experience' realm.
Out of curiosity, have you ever found yourself describing Al Gore as a military veteran?
Out of curiosity, have you ever found yourself describing Al Gore as a military veteran?
Let's try to keep our emotions out of it for the moment. I'm talking about public perception. Military experience, no matter how slight, provides an edge for any candidate, especially a President. Gore and Bush were certainly not WWII generals, they're not even at McCain's level, but they can both say they served. I think people tend to connect military service with leadership ability. Not that it helped in my case.
Post by: wooderson on November 11, 2007, 03:22:18 PM
Quote
You're really missing the point. Governors are perceived as having "executive experience." Senators not so much. That is why governors fare better in Presidential races.
I'm not talking about perception at large - I'm talking about the people here at APS (and in right-wing punditry, casual or professional), criticizing Obama's experience.Now, if you're saying that these folks are working off of perception rather than judging actual meaningful experience...
Quote
I think people tend to connect military service with leadership ability.
I guess I just disagree. At a certain rank or length of service, yes, military service is both a PR boon and legitimate experience for the job of President - Wesley Clark wouldn't have a political career otherwise. And sacrifice (McCain, Max Cleland) is always valued, even if it doesn't play directly into one's qualifications.But a rear-echelon journalist and a non-combat pilot (being kind...) are not positions that translate into either good will from voters or 'experience.'
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 11, 2007, 04:14:53 PM
I am still waiting to hear what Obama's proponents would do with stock they have in a company whose new CEO is he.
Post by: wooderson on November 11, 2007, 04:28:49 PM
Do you really believe that "executive" experience as the governor of, say, Alaska, translates directly to being President?
Do you have objective standards of 'executive'-ness, that we might apply them to all candidates? What might those standards be? How did you decide on them?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 11, 2007, 05:08:43 PM
Do Senators not have 'executive experience' running Congressional offices and campaign staffs?
Actually, nowadays they hire office managers and campaign managers for those, respectively. So, "no".
Quote
Do you really believe that "executive" experience as the governor of, say, Alaska, translates directly to being President?
Yes.
Quote
Do you have objective standards of 'executive'-ness, that we might apply them to all candidates? What might those standards be? How did you decide on them?
There are fundamental differences between executive and legislative mindsets and skillsets. The executive has to manage a very complex piece of property in the "real world", with all its ambiguity, compromises, budgets, random events, economics. The legislative are basically lawyer-politicians coming up with precepts based on legal precedent, but ultimately quite possibly devoid of implementability in the real world. That's why we are stuck with so many stupid unworkable laws.
In military terms, a successful executive is like a field commander, while a legislator is the theoretician sitting someplace safe and writing treatises on how battles should be fought. Even if the latter is good at what he does, that's not what is needed: Since the job is a field one, I want the guy with the appropriate skill set.
By the way, I am still waiting.
Post by: roo_ster on November 11, 2007, 05:27:17 PM
Do Senators not have 'executive experience' running Congressional offices and campaign staffs?
Do you really believe that "executive" experience as the governor of, say, Alaska, translates directly to being President?
Do you have objective standards of 'executive'-ness, that we might apply them to all candidates? What might those standards be? How did you decide on them?
Congresscritters can abuse their staffs and they have no recourse. That takes no skill other than being an a--hole. Working with a potful of state legislators to accomplish his goals and the state bureaucracy from the gov's mansion requires a bit more from a man.Do you really believe that "executive" experience as the governor of, say, Alaska, translates directly to being President?
Do you have objective standards of 'executive'-ness, that we might apply them to all candidates? What might those standards be? How did you decide on them?
Direct translation? I don't think any job is "directly" translatable" to POTUS But, some more so than others. The closest would be a state's governor.
Some occupations have an executive/managerial/leadership component. Some don't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to separate them.
WRT Obama, he just hasn't done much. He has 3 years of non-gov't/non-academic employment as a junior lawyer in a firm outside of his experience as a state legislator and two years in the US Senate. Pardon those of us who are underwhelmed by his resume.
Post by: Paddy on November 11, 2007, 06:04:56 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2007, 06:42:38 PM
Do Senators not have 'executive experience' running Congressional offices and campaign staffs?
Do you really believe that "executive" experience as the governor of, say, Alaska, translates directly to being President?
Do you really believe that "executive" experience as the governor of, say, Alaska, translates directly to being President?
Those two statements are very ironic, so juxtaposed. I'm surprised you went straight from one to the other.
Quote
Governors are perceived as having "executive experience." Senators not so much. That is why governors fare better in Presidential races.
I'm not talking about perception at large - I'm talking about the people here at APS (and in right-wing punditry, casual or professional), criticizing Obama's experience.Why should the two differ? Besides, this is just as much a libertarian site as a conservative one. Although the libertarians seem more concerned with ideology than experience. Which is fine. I think I do, too.
Quote
Now, if you're saying that these folks are working off of perception rather than judging actual meaningful experience...
I think the meaningful experience gives rise to the perception. Public perception is not always incorrect. Quote
Quote
I think people tend to connect military service with leadership ability.
But a rear-echelon journalist and a non-combat pilot (being kind...) are not positions that translate into either good will from voters or 'experience.'Then you don't understand the voters very well, or perhaps you don't understand what I mean. People like to see that a candidate has served. It's not a major factor for people like Bush or Gore, but it is a feather in their cap. Bush's allegedly poor service would not have meant much, if this were not so.
Quote
Out of curiosity, have you ever found yourself describing Al Gore as a military veteran?
I probably never have until now, but it is not something that surfaces very often, so I had forgotten about it. I rarely describe Bush as a military veteran, either. Post by: wooderson on November 11, 2007, 06:50:33 PM
Quote
Actually, nowadays they hire office managers and campaign managers for those, respectively. So, "no".
Is that not what 'executives' do - delegate? I'm pretty sure Dubya, for instance, has a chief of staff and a whole Cabinet of advisers and a raft of managers...How does this differ from being the Governor of Texas?
Quote
Yes.
Then expand upon this.Does being governor of Alaska prepare you for dealing with North Korea, or any other global 'hotspot'?
Does being governor of Alaska prepare you to deal with
Does being governor of Alaska prepare you to wisely use the military in low- and high-intensity situations?
Foreign relations, security and the ability to preside over the entirety of a nation-state would seem to be the three primary roles of a President - none of which is translatable to the 'executive experience' of running a state (again, for the Dubya comparison, a state where power doesn't really reside with the Governor).
The clearest link between Governor and President, as has been stated before, is the ability to work with a legislative body, particularly a body comprised of the 'loyal opposition.' How is this not a skill that can be learned in a legislative body, particularly the Senate in its current state, where it is all about working with the opposition party to accomplish certain goals?
So the best you can really argue here, it appears to me, is that a Governor must learn to 'manage' his state as a President must 'manage' his nation. But that's a rather ephemeral argument.
Quote
There are fundamental differences between executive and legislative mindsets and skillsets.
This is entire paragraph is basically meaningless - your opinion of the executive and legislative 'mindsets.' I asked about standards and how they're applied.
Post by: wooderson on November 11, 2007, 07:01:12 PM
Quote
Those two statements are very ironic, so juxtaposed. I'm surprised you went straight from one to the other.
Not sure how - I think I've made it pretty clear that a) I think the 'experience' argument is nonsense (there is no preparation for being the most powerful human being in human history - each President having more toys and more power, becoming that person on Inauguration Day), and that I'm questioning the double standard applied here rather than arguing that being a legislator is 'valuable experience' where being a governor is not.Quote
Why should the two differ?
Because these are two different questions."Which job gives the sheen of experience" vs. "Which job gives experience."
The statements I'm responding to have been the latter. And I expect anyone making such statements to acknowledge that difference.
Quote
Then you don't understand the voters very well, or perhaps you don't understand what I mean.
This is a bold argument to make. Have any poll numbers of Bush/Gore/other candidates with low-level military service to back this up?Quote
People like to see that a candidate has served.
People like to see anyone serve. You haven't isolated this in relation to Quote
Bush's allegedly poor service would not have meant much, if this were not so.
The question of Bush's service was not about him being a 'bad soldier' - it was about abuse of privilege (being the scion of aristocracy, was he excused from duty) with a side order of potential drug and alcohol issues.Lest ye forget, our previous, far more popular President was a Moscow-Lovin'-Draft-Dodgin'-Soldier-Hatin'-Hippie.
And that Dubya's last opponent was a decorated veteran - which did nothing for his campaign.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 11, 2007, 07:46:10 PM
Quote
Why should the two differ?
Because these are two different questions."Which job gives the sheen of experience" vs. "Which job gives experience."
The statements I'm responding to have been the latter. And I expect anyone making such statements to acknowledge that difference.
You're confused about what I was responding to with that question, but anyway, your expectation is unwarranted. There is no reason why the "sheen" should not coincide with the actual experience. I'm saying that it does. If you don't agree, fine.
Quote
Quote
Then you don't understand the voters very well, or perhaps you don't understand what I mean.
This is a bold argument to make. Have any poll numbers of Bush/Gore/other candidates with low-level military service to back this up?Post by: CAnnoneer on November 11, 2007, 08:00:12 PM
Post by: roo_ster on November 12, 2007, 05:49:50 AM
wooderson, you got a lot to learn about the world.
I quite agree, especially in light of,Quote from: wooderson
...I think I've made it pretty clear that a) I think the 'experience' argument is nonsense...
Experience matters.Why would employers pay more for a prospective new hire with ten years experience in the field and the appropriate degree than for some newly graduated fellow with just a degree? Are employers all participating in a shared delusion?
Would you be more comfy if you were informed that the pilot of your LA to NY flight was:
1. A pilot who earned his chops flying C130s for all of Uncle Sam's military ops around the world and subsequently has 10 yeas behind the yoke on this model of 747 you now inhabit?
OR
2. A pilot who has just completed his first solo flight and has 20 hours in a 747 flight simulator?
Quote from: wooderson
...I'm questioning the double standard applied here rather than arguing that being a legislator is 'valuable experience' where being a governor is not...
They are two different functions with different levels of responsibility and different tasks.A legislator can be a seat-warmer and hide in a crowd. Even if he is pinned down, he can make the case that there are 534 other legislators who also are responsible, so to pin it on HIM is unfair...an executive is the man at the top. If he wants to push an agenda, he must step up to the podium and make his case.
A legislator does not have to make anything work. He can navel-gaze all day long and never be troubled by the consequences of his actions...an executive must take the law and apply it in a world of wife beaters, child molesters, and disability frauds.
Post by: wooderson on November 12, 2007, 07:15:15 AM
Quote
We're just saying that it helps, and that a governor is that much more prepared for the office than a Senator.
Yes, and I'm saying 'why' - if it's gut instinct that a Governor is 'more prepared,' fine - but that is merely an issue of perception rather than meaningful qualities.Quote
There is no reason why the "sheen" should not coincide with the actual experience.
It may or it may not - but that's beside the point."Obama is inexperienced" - as claimed here and throughout the right-wing world - is a different statement from "Obama appears inexperienced in comparison to someone with Resume X." The latter is, objectively, 'true' - we look upon people with longer terms in office or different offices as being more experienced for President.
But that doesn't have a thing to do with the first statement, which is what I've responded to.
Quote
How is it bold? If you can find any polls about how much weight voters give to military service, independent of all other factors, please share.
It's bold because you don't have those polls that you're now asking for. I don't know why I would provide them, as you're the one making an argument about the value of minor military service to political reputation.Anecdotally, as I said: Bush defeated two individuals with more 'in-country' and/or combat experience than he had, and he himself is markedly less popular than his predecessor the 'draft dodger.'
Post by: wooderson on November 12, 2007, 07:19:35 AM
Experience matters.
I never suggested that 'experience' didn't matter. I said that the 'experience argument' is BS. Note the difference.I've asked, repeatedly, for standards of what, in your minds, constitutes 'experience,' and how they've been formulated, that we can apply them equally to all candidates.
Ignored the rest, as it had nothing to do with my statement about the 'experience argument.'
Quote
They are two different functions with different levels of responsibility and different tasks.
Indeed they are, hence being different jobs. You haven't established exactly why one of them provides necessary 'experience' for a Presidency, and the other does not.Quote
A legislator can be a seat-warmer and hide in a crowd.
This is all irrelevant - any 'legislator' running for President has not been a backbench seat warmer.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 12, 2007, 08:43:25 AM
Post by: roo_ster on November 12, 2007, 01:12:26 PM
Quote
A legislator can be a seat-warmer and hide in a crowd.
This is all irrelevant - any 'legislator' running for President has not been a backbench seat warmer.Two words: John Kerry. Dude's photo is in the dictionary as an example of a "seat warmer." Not that I mind. We don't need a Teddy Kennedy mini-me doubling the volume of bad bills from the Massachusetts Senators.
There have been several examples of experience as relates to POTUS in previous posts.
Obama lacks experience in both quantity and quality. He hasn't been around long, hasn't done much, and what he has done has less applicability than most other serious contenders. If experience has any relevance to the position of POTUS, by any measure, Obama has little of it.
There are other candidates that also lack experience. Most of them are not in the race and are running vanity campaigns. Of all the top tier candidates from either party, Obama is has the slimmest resume for the POTUS job.
Quote from: wooderson
Foreign relations, security and the ability to preside over the entirety of a nation-state would seem to be the three primary roles of a President - none of which is translatable to the 'executive experience' of running a state....
Actually, the primary role of POTUS is to uphold the COTUS and the primary role of a governor is to uphold their state's constitution.Also, the northern & southern border states have quite a lot to do WRT foreign relations and security. The governor of Alaska has to deal with Russia, as well, considering the fishing waters and close proximity.
Security is a no-brainer. Governors preside over state police agencies and county & local agencies are subject tot the state's constitution and laws.
------
One can believe the "experience argument" BS, but they will be operating outside of reality. I am reminded of the old joke about the economist stranded on a desert island with a bunch of canned goods and no can opener, "To solve this problem, I will first assume a can opener..."
Works fine in the classroom & midnight bull session, but doesn't do so well in reality.