143 Days

[GingerGuy]

You couldn't get a job at McDonald's and become District Manager after 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't become Chief of Surgery after 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the Superintendent after 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't join the military and become a General after 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the Nightly News Anchor after 143 days of experience.   


    BUT....   

'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start,
and strangely, a large sector of the American public is OK with this and campaigning for him.

We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet many are OK with this for the President of the United States of America ?

Come on folks, we're not voting for the next American Idol!

[MicroBalrog]

Abraham Lincoln had less than that.

[Manedwolf]

Abraham Lincoln had less than that.

Lincoln actually DID something besides voting "present".

Whose side are you on now?

[MicroBalrog]

Abraham Lincoln had less than that.

Lincoln actually DID something besides voting "present".

Whose side are you on now?

The side that discounts lame arguments based on the candidates' race, religion, sexual habits, and 'experience', and is interested in stuff like, you know, the actual issues. That, and Obama's connection actual America-hating extremists. THAT is relevant.

Obama's lack of experience? Bristol Palin's baby? McCain's gray hair? Not so much.

[Jamisjockey]

Non issue.  Obama meets the constitutional requirements to be President. 

[longeyes]

A lot of people who will vote for Obama didn't get where they are by experience. 

How much are experience, hard work, and honor really valued any more?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Abraham Lincoln had less than that.

Lincoln actually DID something besides voting "present".

Whose side are you on now?

The side that discounts lame arguments based on the candidates' race, religion, sexual habits, and 'experience', and is interested in stuff like, you know, the actual issues. That, and Obama's connection actual America-hating extremists. THAT is relevant.

Obama's lack of experience? Bristol Palin's baby? McCain's gray hair? Not so much.

Are you saying that experience doesn't matter for a President?  You'd be comfortable with any old inexperienced rookie running the free world?

[MicroBalrog]

Are you saying that experience doesn't matter for a President?  You'd be comfortable with any old inexperienced rookie running the free world?

Put it this way.

Imagine the Dems dug up a Democratic ex-governor with ten years of executive experience, who then went on to be a Senator, and had also served for five years as a Marine sniper in some god-forsaken hellhole, destroying America's enemies for a living. [yes, such a candidate doesn't exist. Bear with me].

Suppose the guy also thinks that .50 caliber rifles must be restricted for members of the police and military, that America needs a graduated income tax with the topmost bracket set at 70%, and that Keynesian economic policies is really, really cool.

Conversely, on the other side of the aisle is a Republican politician with no executive experience whatever, whose goal is to institute a flat tax (not my personal favorite, but bear with me), repeal the Hughes Amendment, and free up the economy.

See my point now?

[The Annoyed Man]

Of all the problems i have with obama... his length of service in government is the least of them.


I mean, seriously... the less experience in Gummint, the better, IMO.


Now, the fact that he's an america-hating socialist... LOL


In fact, were it not for sarah palin, i'd be abstaining from voting. Speaking of which, Palin's inexperienced, too... Does that matter to you?

[Perd Hapley]

There's a difference between length of service and accomplishment.  Obama has very little of the one, and even less of the other.  It is certainly relevant that he has never proven himself as a leader, or demonstrated the ability or guts to change anything, since Change is his campaign theme. 

As I've said before, an obscure postal worker from Corn Husk, Nebraska could conceivably be a great president, but why would we trust someone who hasn't proven himself?

[agricola]

There's a difference between length of service and accomplishment.  Obama has very little of the one, and even less of the other.  It is certainly relevant that he has never proven himself as a leader, or demonstrated the ability or guts to change anything, since Change is his campaign theme. 

As I've said before, an obscure postal worker from Corn Husk, Nebraska could conceivably be a great president, but why would we trust someone who hasn't proven himself?

What on earth are you talking about? 

The man has two autobiographies before he is fifty, with a third on the way.  How can someone who has taken all that time to write about himself not have done something worthwhi.... oh nm.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Are you saying that experience doesn't matter for a President?  You'd be comfortable with any old inexperienced rookie running the free world?

Put it this way.

Imagine the Dems dug up a Democratic ex-governor with ten years of executive experience, who then went on to be a Senator, and had also served for five years as a Marine sniper in some god-forsaken hellhole, destroying America's enemies for a living. [yes, such a candidate doesn't exist. Bear with me].

Suppose the guy also thinks that .50 caliber rifles must be restricted for members of the police and military, that America needs a graduated income tax with the topmost bracket set at 70%, and that Keynesian economic policies is really, really cool.

Conversely, on the other side of the aisle is a Republican politician with no executive experience whatever, whose goal is to institute a flat tax (not my personal favorite, but bear with me), repeal the Hughes Amendment, and free up the economy.

See my point now?

Having the right positions on all of the issues isn't enough to make a good President.  If it were, then the Libertarian Party would have saved the nation decades ago.  No, a good President must also be able to implement the right ideas.  That requires experience and political savvy, among other things.

Of course, a good President must also be able to deal with all sorts of adverse situations.  A President must be able to counteract a media establishment that is utterly opposed to any sort of sensible governance.  A good President must be able to mitigate the political opposition.  And a President must be able to navigate the conflicting and antagonistic interests of a hundred other nations in the world, many of which are our rivals or outright enemies.

All of that must be handled deftly.  It requires experience.  

So, in short, I think that experience, both administrative and political, is a vital requirement for any President.

[MechAg94]

Experience IS an issue.  You may weigh it in with all the others, but if you discount it, you are being foolish IMO. 

As others have said, in a candidates experience:  Did they sit in a position of responsibility where they were the guy in the hot seat that everyone look to for solutions?  Have they demonstrated any leadership ability, an ability to get things done despite opposition, an ability to work with all sides and hammer out a compromise that works? 

McCain should be judged on his experience also, but he has at least shown some of the stuff I mentioned (not all).

[MicroBalrog]

Having the right positions on all of the issues isn't enough to make a good President.

Having  the wrong positions on all the issues is, however, enough to make a bad President, no matter how long of an experience running the People's Republic of California (or Massachusets).

The first requirement of a President must be that he gets the principles right. If the man has the wrong principles, then he will do harm to the Republic.

[RobNDenver]

I would have to agree with you on principles.  The current occupant, his vice president and their advisors have proven that simply being a "good guy" with no principles and no spine has lead us into foreign wars of misadventure, no sustained effort to capture or kill the most venal leaders of Al Qaeda and no guts to tell your boardroom friends that giving money to people who can't repay it then backing those loans up as securities is reckless.  Principles, sheesh, these guys have absolutely no principles, but every man for himself. 

My goddamn savings account is paying 1.76% today, half of what it was a year ago.  Keep my retirement nest egg in stocks?  Not since about 12 months ago, when I realized that nearly all the investment bankers in the USA were in the same boat, unregulated, managed by a bunch of fraternity brothers who get paid no matter whose accounts they screw.

We have a choice between a Harvard educated, incredibly smart guy who understands governance, and one of the officers I used to see in the service who always had a Corvette and a good looking girl on his arm.  Not very smart, but never very demanding as officers go.

Our country can't stand another average Joe in the White House.

[agricola]

We have a choice between a Harvard educated, incredibly smart guy who needs 300 advisers to come up with his foriegn policy positions and who can read two teleprompters at the same time, and one of the officers I used to see in the service who always had a Corvette and a good looking girl on his arm.  Not very smart, but never very demanding as officers go though he did actually spend two decades in the Senate.

Fixed it for you.

[Manedwolf]

I would have to agree with you on principles.  The current occupant, his vice president and their advisors have proven that simply being a "good guy" with no principles and no spine has lead us into foreign wars of misadventure, no sustained effort to capture or kill the most venal leaders of Al Qaeda and no guts to tell your boardroom friends that giving money to people who can't repay it then backing those loans up as securities is reckless.  Principles, sheesh, these guys have absolutely no principles, but every man for himself. 

My goddamn savings account is paying 1.76% today, half of what it was a year ago.  Keep my retirement nest egg in stocks?  Not since about 12 months ago, when I realized that nearly all the investment bankers in the USA were in the same boat, unregulated, managed by a bunch of fraternity brothers who get paid no matter whose accounts they screw.

We have a choice between a Harvard educated, incredibly smart guy who understands governance, and one of the officers I used to see in the service who always had a Corvette and a good looking girl on his arm.  Not very smart, but never very demanding as officers go.

Our country can't stand another average Joe in the White House.

So you're blaming the government for your own incompetence in managing your finances?

What, do you want someone to hold your hand and do it for you?

[Boomhauer]

We have a choice between a Harvard educated, incredibly smart guy who understands governance, and one of the officers I used to see in the service who always had a Corvette and a good looking girl on his arm.  Not very smart, but never very demanding as officers go.

Obama and smart do not go together in the same sentence. Period. 

I will not vote to sell our country down the river. I will not vote for some Democrat twit who is arm in arm with Karl Marx.

Want the European style bullcrap that Obama desperately wants to institute? Move to a country with it already.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

We have a choice between a Harvard educated, incredibly smart guy who understands governance,

Which incredibly smart guy who understand governance would that be, exactly?

[AZRedhawk44]

Everything I've seen Obama do in the last year indicates to me that he's great as oratory proclamations but lacks the ability to present a solid plan.

I literally shouted at the TV during the Democratic Debates, saying "Specifics!  Specifics, you trite piece of $#!+.  Tell me a plan!"

I wish someone had a bluetooth jammer there.  Might have been fun to watch Obama stumble when he couldn't be whispered to wirelessly.  Cuz is sure is fun to watch him stumble at town halls and for the rare live question he actually decides to answer.

I am ASTOUNDED that he came forward with a plan for American scientific achievement before McCain did (referring to the other thread around here).  But... it's all gubmint spending increases, so it must come easy for him.  In some ways, it's better that McCain took longer to answer that.  And had fewer/shorter responses.

[ArfinGreebly]

Why astounded?

It was a set of written answers to written questions.

Written by his handlers.

Someone waved it in front of him and said, "you okay with this?"

"Sure, ship it."

I would seriously doubt his ability to quote a single line from "his" response to those 14 questions.

[GigaBuist]

I will not vote for some Democrat twit who is arm in arm with Karl Marx.

Ironically penned on the day when the Fed to takes 80% ownership of AIG, a private company.

[drewtam]

If we want a weaker Fed and stronger States. If we want a weaker presidential office that doesn't try to rule an empire. If we want a gov't that isn't so arrogant and obnoxious. If we want a gov't that doesn't trade horses for votes; but rather has principles. If we want representation of the people rather than representation by the optimates...

Then we have to get away from professional politicians!

A professional politician is someone who thinks partisanship and elected office is a career choice. Where a promotion means going from state senate to federal senate. And the only way to get away from professional politicians is to start voting for people who are not experienced in being a career politician, but are experienced in being a small business owner, an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer, etc. I'm not talking about Joe Shmoe for president. But we need to measure experience in other things besides being a career politician. Obama has a little bit of that change, and so I don't fault him for being "inexperienced". Sarah Palin has a lot of that change, which is why I really like her.

[SteveS]

So, in short, I think that experience, both administrative and political, is a vital requirement for any President.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_31-2008_09_06.shtml#1220574845

This article argues that political experience isn't always a good predictor of how well a person will govern.  The author asserts:

Nonetheless, there is no systematic evidence suggesting that presidents with extensive prior political experience have done better than those with relatively little.

As an example:

It's easy to think of highly experienced presidents who performed poorly in office. James Buchanan, John Quincy Adams, and Richard Nixon are some of the best examples. On the other hand, several presidents with very little experience have done extremely well. Abraham Lincoln, whose only major elected office before becoming president was a single term in the House, is the most famous case. Among post-World War II presidents, the ones with the most prior political experience were Nixon (vice president for 8 years, prominent congressman), Lyndon Johnson (VP and powerful senate majority leader) and George H.W. Bush (VP for 8 years, various important positions in the executive branch). It's hard to argue that these leaders performed systematically better in office than relatively less-experienced counterparts such as Truman (VP for only a few months and a brief Senate career), Clinton (governor of a small state), and Reagan (governor of California, but very little foreign policy experience). Eisenhower (prominent general, but no experience in elected office), Ford (House minority leader) and Jimmy Carter (governor of a major state; member of the foreign policy-focused Trilateral Commission) fall somewhere in the middle between these two groups.

Many Obama supporters have touted his intelligence as a reason he is a better choice.  While I would like a president that is somewhere at the high nd of the spectrum, there is no proof that the being very smart makes you a good leader.  Nixon had a good academic record and was lousy.  Hoover was very smart, translated a renaissance work that is still used as a text today, and lectured at several prominent universities.  I wouldn't argue he was a good leader.

[Perd Hapley]

Many Obama supporters have touted his intelligence as a reason he is a better choice.  While I would like a president that is somewhere at the high nd of the spectrum, there is no proof that the being very smart makes you a good leader.

Is there any proof of Obama's intelligence?