Palin gives keynote speech at 'tea party' gathering

[agzg]

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

[HDL66]

Originally Posted by HDL66

I guess it depends on what job you are applying for. His resume is impressive. . . but I still maintain his RELEVANT experience was lacking when he was running to be elected CEO of the only superpower in the world. The man may have had a world class education and been distinguished in legal circles, but would you hire a CEO of a multitrillion dollar operation who had had NO executive experience? Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II were all governors, and Bush I was Vice President. What executive experience did Obama have? None that I can see from the list provided above. NONE. He also, as I mentioned earlier, has had no private sector experience or had first hand experience as an employer. Pretty dicey place for on-the-job training.

I suppose you think his merits also qualified him for the Nobel Peace prize?

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If President of the United States is such a singular position, then why would anything be adequate preparation?

Also, you really think ARKANSAS is similar to a "multi-trillion-dollar corporation" in any way? Come on. The comparison you're making is surface-level - the day-to-day management of Federal "employees" is incidental at best for the POTUS. Budget-balancing is remarkably different at a Federal level than at a corporate level. The position is much more about ideas and personality than any specific "CEO" skill, and you've said nothing to prove otherwise. Like, at all. Just because it is called the Executive Branch does not mean that the requirements are the same as a corporate executive.

Oh - GWB had a LOT of private-sector experience . . . and he was a miserable failure, both in the private sector and as President. Reagan's tenure as California governor is hilariously specious to cite, because according to your own logic, he was wholly and completely unqualified for the job when he got it.

What experience is "relevant" to being the most powerful man on the planet? Being the most powerful man in Little Rock? Come on.

Absolutely non sequitur - does not follow at all, and shows just how awkward your line of thinking has become . . . the guy you're talking to is a fairly hard-core Republican.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by HDL66

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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

[HDL66]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by HDL66

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by HDL66

I am talking about what I want as qualifications for president of the United States.

Originally Posted by HDL66

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. . . .

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by HDL66

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.

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.