Interesting pic of Obama during the National Anthem...

[wooderson]

I'm curious as to whether y'all applied this 'lack of experience' judgement to Dubya in 2000. Six years as a relatively weak governor who accomplished very little (and essentially nothing without the cooperation of the Texas Dem leadership), riding the coattails of a peaceful and economically comfortable era.

[RocketMan]

That picture of "W" standing during the national anthem makes me wonder what he had for lunch.

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[wooderson]

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.

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?

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?

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

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.

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?

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.   

[wooderson]

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...

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.'

[CAnnoneer]

What matters is executive experience, because the job is in the executive. I don't care how many years one stays as a legislator. That's why one of Romney's strengths which he always points out is running a successful major business. The same was true for Cheney.

I am still waiting to hear what Obama's proponents would do with stock they have in a company whose new CEO is he.

[wooderson]

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?

[CAnnoneer]

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".

Do you really believe that "executive" experience as the governor of, say, Alaska, translates directly to being President?

Yes.

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

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.

[Paddy]

'Executive' experience is bullshit.  It just means you make somebody else do your dirtywork and them blame them when it fails.

[Perd Hapley]

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? 

Those two statements are very ironic, so juxtaposed.  I'm surprised you went straight from one to the other. 

  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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

[wooderson]

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?

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.

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.

[wooderson]

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.

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.

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?

People like to see that a candidate has served.

People like to see anyone serve. You haven't isolated this in relation to

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.

[Perd Hapley]

Wooderson, you're taking our statements too far.  No one claims that a few years of military service makes you an instant winner.  We're just saying that it helps.  In the same way, no one claims that running Texas for a few years gives one all the needed tools of foreign policy.  We're just saying that it helps, and that a governor is that much more prepared for the office than a Senator. 

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. 

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?

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. 

[CAnnoneer]

wooderson, you got a lot to learn about the world. 

[roo_ster]

wooderson, you got a lot to learn about the world. 

I quite agree, especially in light of,

...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?

...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.

[wooderson]

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.

  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.

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.'

[wooderson]

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.'

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.

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.

[CAnnoneer]

I am still waiting.

[roo_ster]

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.

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.