^^^ What he said . . .

. . . well, except for the hard-core Republican part. http://www.smilieshq.com/smilies/ashamed0005.gif

Fixed it for you.

As anyone who paid attention in civics class would know.

As RC said, POTUS is a fairly unique job, and I'd dare say that there's NO relevant experience to truly prepare you for the position.

What his background DOES show is that he's an extremely intelligent guy with the capacity to take in a large amount of information and analyze it, and, even more importantly, it shows that he has the capacity to hire smart people to help him. To me, those are things that are much more important than any prior "executive" experience.

Also, if we want to be completely accurate here, it's not true to say he had "no private sector experience." He worked for a Chicago-area law firm for over 10 years.

What does this have to do with anything? Like RC said, I'm not exactly a fan of the President (although I didn't know I qualified as "hardcore," haha). If you want to argue the point, stick to the issue, don't try to bring up this other stuff to show some hidden bias.

Ahh... nice to see the crazy train is rolling along nicely in spite of the snow/earthquake.

Several points.

I do agree that nothing truly prepares you to be POTUS. However, all the recent previous presidents that I cited had a breadth of experience--a package of preparation--that Obama just does not have.

Please note that I did not say a multitrillion $ CORPORATION but OPERATION. The experience of the previous presidents were in the governmental executive branch, not the corporate world. I'm not sure why citing Reagan's 2 terms as California governor is "hilariously specious"--I think being the head of the executive branch in a state that produces 13% of the US GDP and would rank at about 8th as an independent nation in the world economy is a fairly significant qualification. Certainly more so than being an attorney or law school professor.

As far as the jab at Clinton "being the most powerful man in Little Rock," he also had an impressive education CV IN ADDITION to practical experience governing. He was also very active on the national scene as head of the DLC. Again, breadth of experience and and relevant leadership.

I agree that the Nobel issue does not relate specifically to this discussion. But it goes to this point: I think a significant # of people, especially in the MSM and certainly in the intellectual elite, champion Obama because he is a charismatic man, spectacular orator, and he mirrors their goals and values, not because he has produced anything that is meritous. It seems he often gets a pass on everything from his qualifications for president to what he has or hasn't accomplished as president.

And finally, re: mentioning private sector experience (preferably not just as an employee but an employer.) The reason I think that is important is that small business is truly the engine of the US economy. For all his advisors, I don't think Obama has a clue what effect his policies and the threat of his policies (cap and trade, higher health care premiums, forced health care coverage, higher taxes, higher national debt and devaluing of the dollar) really have on the mind of a small businessman. It seems Obama thinks if he can just lend them more cheap money, they'll add jobs. With all the other issues in the background, it's not working.

And those Presidents, in turn, showed massive volatility in their success as President (and some would say ability to be President, as well). In fact, there's really no evidence any specific part of that 'breadth of skill' helped or had positive impact - certainly about half of those Presidents, if not more, kind of sucked.

What was Reagan's resume at the time he was elected governor? Think about that for a minute, then apply that logic to your larger point here.

What was the last President to come from a 'true' small-business background (beyond "charging $300/hour for their time" or similar)? I can't think of a single one, ever.

Presidents historically just don't come from that kind of background.

Separately (and not directed specifically at you), it's kind of hilarious that we have a "Tea Party" movement directed at a return to Constitutional rule/small government when we just elected a legit Constitutional scholar. Ideology uber alles I suppose.

Good point - I'm not sure that using Bush II or Carter as examples are good ways to make a point.

I wasn't talking about qualifications for governor. I am talking about what I want as qualifications for president of the United States. You need to get experience somewhere, and I don't want it to be on the job in the Oval Office.

Some people would say Truman was a very successful president, and of course he didn't have a great resume. You can make almost any point with an anecdote/example and we could go back and forth. I still don't think it's an unreasonable position to want a more experienced vs less experienced candidate. (As an aside, Truman did have real small business experience--and was a miserable failure there lol) I suppose that my biggest objection to Obama (other than concrete ones like his policies) is what Charles Krauthammer terms "The Audacity of Vanity." And I quote:

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

The op ed was in the Washington Post in July 2008. You can read the whole thing here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071701839.html.

And if you want to argue with Charles Krauthammer. . . be my guest.:)

They would've noticed that from the beginning if they took their heads out of their asses.

So would I be correct in assuming that you did not believe John McCain was qualified either? He had no private sector experience and no executive branch experience. By the criteria you're setting out, it seems that the only person on the ticket who was qualified was Sarah Palin.

I think it's completely legit to take experience into account when deciding who is going to get your vote, although different people will give varying degrees of weight to different types of experience. But when I see an argument like you (or Krauthammer) are making, particularly when the argument fits so well with why you think Obama's policies are flawed and aren't working, the arguments come across more as self-justification than as objective assessment.

BTW, I'd love for you or Krauthammer to find me a president from the last 50 years or so who didn't have an elevated opinion of himself, or a credible presidential candidate for that matter. An elevated opinion of one's self is pretty much required if you're going to run for President.

That wasn't the point you were making previously, though. Your earlier point was that his resume was too thin to be President. Saying that he's conceited is a completed different issue, and no one on this thread is arguing for or against that point.

People want different things in their President, different ideologies and different areas of experience. Some people want "insiders," some people want "outsiders," some people want veterans, some people want those with foreign policy expertise. That's fine, and that's part of the reason people vote for different candidates.

I think, though, there's a difference between saying "He doesn't have the qualifications I would want in a President," and saying "His resume is too thin to be qualified to be President." One can ask for certain qualifications and yet still recognize that the present qualifications are more than adequate.

This. Who but someone with a more than healthy dose of self-esteem would even consider the job.

Other than that, I am finding the discourse enjoyable. Carry on. :)

But what private sector experience did Palin have, at least that would qualify under HDL's criteria? I know she helped in her husband's commercial fishing business, but I haven't seen anything saying that she took some major responsbility in the business.

I'll also agree that any Presidential candidate is going to have an elevated opinion of himself. It's absolutely a job requirement. If you're going to take the type of criticism you take as President, and if you're going to make major decisions that affect the lives of people all over the country (and all over the world), you have to have that elevated opinion of yourself. If not, you'd be constantly waffling on every potential decision.

Hey, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt on that one.

If anyone thinks that this:
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
describes a robust set of qualifications for president, we will just have to agree to disagree. My initial point was, indeed, that his resume was thin. The point about his arrogance is an additional point, but does not negate the clear conclusion that I have that he does have very limited preparation to be the leader of the free world.

It is true that John McCain did not have gov. executive experience, but the choice was between two candidates that did not. The American people typically elect someone with that experience, at least in recent history. This time that choice was not available after nominations were made. But McCain was still eminently more qualified than Obama, IMHO. He had a vast amount of experience with the military and foreign affairs, which we have not even touched on (except for the "corpsman" comment). Obama, to the best of my knowledge, has no military experience and precious little foreign policy exposure. McCain has years of experience in the Senate and reached across party lines--some Repubs would say way too much--to try to achieve legislative ends. In what way did Obama prove himself to be an effective legislator either at the state or federal level? Can you think of any?? I guess this goes back to my point about the breadth of experience and package of preparation. Obviously you'll never find someone who has everything (ie also exec experience and private sector experience.) While Obama was distinguished in his education and legal career, he was not well rounded in his preparation for the job that he now finds himself in.

Two additional points:

I never said that Sarah Palin was qualified, in fact my first post I indicated that I wouldn't support her for a Presidential bid. But she was not on the top of the ticket in 2009, McCain was. That made a big difference to me. She might have grown into the job, but it was a job that I was electing McCain to fill.

Second, with regard to Obama's high opinion of himself. When you elect a president, it's kind of like hiring a surgeon. They'd better have a little bit of a swagger, or you don't want to put your life (or country) in their hands. Reagan and Churchill would be examples. Krauthammer's point, which I agree with, however, is that there [has never been] a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Self confidence is one thing. Obama's narcissism without corresponding achievement is another.

But that doesn't describe the sum total of his experience or qualifications. It also by implicitly downplays the listed accomplishments.

There's a fundamental difference between being a Congressperson and being President. Also, it's not like McCain had a variety of experiences going for him when he ran - he had been a Senator and in the armed forces.

I still think that your (and by extension Krauthammer's) definition of "corresponding achievement" is far too narrow. Look, he may not have had a laundry list full of decades of service, but his resume included some darn impressive accomplishments, which can't really be downplayed.

I also think that Krauthammer's opinion shows a stunning lack of historical awareness. There are certainly other nominees with a larger gap between their self-perception and reality.

HDL...So this whole rant is for you to say, "I don't like Obama as President." Right?

Ok...thanks.

True. She would have been Veep to an elderly man with a history of health problems. That made a big difference to me.

(Well, that and, as I noted on GC when he chose her, the stunningly bad tactical move of undercutting his best argument -- Obama's lack of experience -- by choosing her. See, I never said I ignored his relative lack of experience. I just didn't htperbolize it either.)

Yep. It's all hyperbole.

Exactly. You have to possess an extreme amount of confidence to even think that you can run a country such as ours and then to actually go through with running for president takes even more. Whether a person lets their confidence show or takes a more modest approach is another story entirely.

I read one article where she was receiving emails from experts on particular topics. Obviously she isn't using her background in journalism or her education from the University of Idaho because being able to research multiple sources and draw your own conclusions is something UI promotes in the curriculum.

I'm pretty sure these "experts" are people who tell her what she wants to hear.

Really you a mind reader now? The only comment he made in his first post had nothing to do with Palin, but with the Tea Party movement.

No. If he could read minds, he'd know nobody wants him to keep coming back or cares what he thinks. He's like Earp Jr.

Good grief, that's the best you can do?

Pathetic, just pathetic. If only you'd use your brains a little more you could honestly call yourself a half-wit.

See what happens when you have that Black card?

I can take it back if you want. Then MM won't have any harsh words for you.

Oh, you are on a roll today.

I can't keep up with your wit.

Oh no, I'll keep it and weather his nerf-sharp repartee.

For the History Buffs...
 

Didn't know if I should post this here, or start a new thread.

I have been reading about the Tea Party movement and have been trying to understand their general disquiet in a historical context. Is the fear really greater now than it has been at any other point in history, or does the "Tea Party Movement" just make for catchy headlines? If the fear is greater, why so?

I mean, I have some thoughts on the matter, but the historical context would be useful. So if you want to provide particular examples or references, I am all for it. :D

i prefer to call them teabaggers.

Uh...I guess sometime in the past couple of years, I can't remember if it was pre- or post- 08 election, but 35 states all ratified messures asserting their rights as states and basically telling the federal government to back off, we can handle our own thing. These guys are riding on the coat-tails of that, as that in and of itself seems to be working out. At least for the bigger states (California and New York among them).

That is how I see them anyway, they sprang to life right at that time, and only still exist where such things are popular.

Right, but they are working from some very old ideas; so the Tea Party Movement is just another iteration. I guess what I am talking about is the fear that is motivating the movement (the faltering of the U. S. as a nation as a result of our weakened economic position etc. etc.); it seems as though we have seen this before.

I am just trying to figure out whether the fear is more extreme and more widespread this time around; or if it just seems like it.

I think the only people who can really own the theme of the "Tea Party" in the true spirit of taxation without representation are the residents of DC.

The widespread fear, in my opinion, is the increase of media and technology and how in a second people can get information (correct or incorrect) and have lost their ability to think independently and rely upon talking heads and pundits on all sides. We have all kinds of crazy conspiracy people in Idaho so I've seen it first hand. I lurve people who don't want to pay taxes yet still expect the fire department to come to their home if their house is on fire or they have a heart attack. They also want roads repaired and plowed but don't feel they should pay for that, or libraries which don't deserve money either, but they like the free movies and books.

I think this has a lot to do with it.

If you look at mass movements like this in US History, I don't think there's been anything like this since the suffrage and anti-immigrant movements of the early 20th century. I'm not including the anti-war sentiment of WWI and Vietnam because I think those are a separate issue.

Technology plays a HUGE role in all of this. Besides the points that VS listed above, technology (through blogs, email, etc.) has made it easier to coordinate the movement (organizing meeting locations, getting speakers such as Palin, etc.). That has helped take it from a bunch of local pockets to something on a national scale.

As far as the subject, taxation, I'm not sure there has been something like this in the past. When Bush I raised taxes in violation of his "No new taxes" statement, there was some hosility, but not to this level. I don't even think there was this level of protest when the income taxes were first instituted in the late 19th century, or when they were raised during the World Wars.

I think that the combination of more technology, a Democrat as President, and the current financial situation combined to create a perfect storm.

Little32, I'm not sure if that's responsive to your question, but that's just the opinion of one history major.

Why would you use such a pejorative term?

I wouldn't call you a @#$%su*&er because you may or may not be a liberal.

Ghostwriter,

I've gone over this with you before, but you've completely failed to acknowledge any of my posts. Perhaps you have me on ignore, and if that is the case I apologize for posting this yet again. However, there was a time early in the tea party movement when tea party attendees themselves would call themselves "teabaggers"...eventually, I think they caught on to the double entendre and then it became offensive. I don't care for the term at all and would prefer that it was no one used it...observers or tea party participants...but I think it's a bit ignorant to pretend that tea partiers didn't initially use the term themselves (particularly because I have now informed you of this fact multiple times...you can't act like you didn't know it).

Does the bolded stand for "teabagger?"

link


(entry) 6. tea bagger


1. A sex act.

2. A phrase Fox News picked to promote a series of "Boston Tea Party" reenactment protests against the Obama administration on Tax Freedom Day, apparently unaware of the meaning of the phrase (see above.)

Fox news watcher: are you going to the tea bagger party?

Me: what are you, some kinda perv?

So are you starang21? That is who I quoted and asked the question of.

No a little North of "teabagger".:D

http://i.peperonity.com/c/5F7B51/135...5000_0_1_0.gif

+

http://www.aimfundraising.com/images...fundraiser.jpg

What's a little North of "teabagger?"

Cocksucker? That's what it was? Womp womp.

I've heard of "cocksucking liberal" and "cocksucking conservative." That's all.