Thread: Obama's Experience

Originally Posted by The AD

In this particular election neither candidate has that experience, though,

True. If I were going to pound away at this point I might argue that decades of senatorial experience at the federal level is preferable to what Obama has had. Because it allows you the chance to be involved in the inner workings of Washington. But, in the end, I think that would be a weak argument.

but Obama is much more closely aligned with my views on the issues.

And mine are more aligned with McCain. IMO, that will ultimately be the deciding factor in this race.

I do think that McCain is much more polished than Obama. Obama is not used to campaigning on the national level and has made numerous mistakes that a more experienced campaigner wouldn't have made. But that is a separate issue and has more to do with reading the national mood and knowing how something will play with the public.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

And mine are more aligned with McCain. IMO, that will ultimately be the deciding factor in this race.

Serious question, what exactly makes you more aligned with him? His anti-choice (see Palin), anti-homosexuals, pro-handgun, pro-assault weapons, pro-taxcuts for the rich, anti-environment, etc. stances? or is it something else?

edit to add: What about his choice of VP? Is that a factor for you or do you think he'll be healthy enough for at least the next four years to perform the duties of POTUS? Because I have a strong feeling the stresses of the job are going to be a bit much for the old guy.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

And mine are more aligned with McCain. IMO, that will ultimately be the deciding factor in this race.

Stick with this one. That right there has the makings of a substantive argument. Your experience ones again and again are failures and the gaffe machine argument also is a failure. But the politics and policy argument, that there has some fuckin meat to it.

Originally Posted by lemon boy

edit:
Along that vein- Please read my posts again and give credit to the words that I have used, in the manner that I have used them and with the clear meaning that I have intended them to be used with. While it is true that words have meanings, you also must give credit to how the words are used and intended.

I do and this is what you said.

Originally Posted by lemon boy

Yes, 10 years in state and federal legislatures is something I do consider to be valuable experience governing (or in government for the clueless would be wordsmiths) easily on par with the governors [the title not the act of ]

What I see is you trying to equate being in government with governing. If you see no significant distinction between those two than I understand why you think the argument is superficial and there really isn't anywhere to go after that.

b) swaying those voters that don't have particularily strong political views.

I agree. But the reality of this election has little to do with the academic discussion of why experience matters. I get the impression that you are not making a distinction between the two.

I don't think there's anything that can prepare you for being president, except maybe VP or being a top-level executive staffer...

so, none of them are "experienced" however all of them have all the people they need around them to be an effective president.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Words mean things.

Learning, you are; even if just leetle baby steps. Good.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Serious question, what exactly makes you more aligned with him? His anti-choice (see Palin), anti-homosexuals, pro-handgun, pro-assault weapons, pro-taxcuts for the rich, anti-environment, etc. stances? or is it something else?

It's his policy of doing things at random, for no good reason, not even because his gut told him to.
See, neither leadership ability nor experience nor policy positions matter when you're a loose cannon.
All that matters is your proven ability to be a Maverick. McCain's got that one locked up, so this election's a slamdunk.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

What I see is you trying to equate being in government with governing. If you see no significant distinction between those two than I understand why you think the argument is superficial and there really isn't anywhere to go after that.

Again, you miscompute quite deliberately I think:

My belief that this is a superficial argument =/= my weighting of experience.

But if you like I'll give you a comparative weighting:

You continue to focus exclusively on the executive aspect of the experience and are devaluing the legislative experience. I simply don't think that is entirely fair for a variety of reasons:

1. Neither candidate has the experience you're arguing is so important, but one has more of the experience that you devalue.
2. Legislative experience is IMVHO applicable and valueable to the job title: POTUS because while that position is the chief executive it also falls to the POTUS to work with the legislature to enact/promote his (or her) agenda. This is one area that is IMVHO important to the job and one where experience as an executive is clearly less valuable than legislative experience.
3. While McCain clearly has more federal legislative experience, I happen to think that participation in state govt. is also useful and gives a candidate an appreciation for the challenges a state faces absolutely and vis a vis the federal govt.

To be clear:
I do believe that Obama is less experienced than McCain. I simply do not believe that his comparatively less experience leaves him unequipped for the job.


Again, I think this is all so much fodder for the political unmotivated and I believe that the issue has gotten really absurd with the addition of Palin because neither side can really claim it with out looking silly.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Serious question, what exactly makes you more aligned with him?

Short answer: He is running against Obama.

Obama is far too socialist/big government/more taxes/gov solutions to personal problems, for me. Obama represents the antithesis of what I want/think the government should be. So put McCain in a vacuum and I wouldn't like him too much but put him up against Obama and he starts looking much better.

What about his choice of VP? Is that a factor for you or do you think he'll be healthy enough for at least the next four years to perform the duties of POTUS? Because I have a strong feeling the stresses of the job are going to be a bit much for the old guy.

His VP choice may well be the most important VP choice in our lifetime. Because of his age. But I am not a "values voter" I don't care what someone believes about god or abortion or gay rights or a hundred other social issues. The POTUS should not be involved in those issues. Those should be dealt with on the state level, and largely are. They do appoint supreme court justices but they have to be confirmed by congress. It is looking like there is going to be a dem controlled congress this time around so it's all good.

As far as the fact that she has been in a bubble for most of her life, I kind of like it. Obama got me all hopped up for change and I think out of all the people on the ticket, McCain/Palin is the most capable of creating it. McCain has one term in him and is accomplished at telling people what they can go do with themselves if he doesn't like them. He also has a history of bucking his own party. Palin is not a political insider and I don't think she will ever be. So I'm pretty happy with a McCain/Palin ticket.


I'm guessing you are solidly in the Obama camp?

Changing toward a Theocracy is change as well, just not the change I believe in.

I still want to see the evidence that Democrats are for Taxing the hell out of everybody and creating huge government bureaucracies and the Republicans are fiscally conservative and for limited governmental roles in our daily lives. This has absolutely NOT been the case since Ronald Reagan won office in 1980... the polar opposite has been the case.

I'll keep posting it 'til my keyboard breaks - the last POTUS to shrink the Federal headcount was Bill Clinton.

I am a left winger. Amy Goodman is a left winger. Angela Y. Davis is a left winger. Barak Obama is not even close.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Short answer: He is running against Obama.

So I'm pretty happy with a McCain/Palin ticket.


I'm guessing you are solidly in the Obama camp?

Yeah, I like the Obama/Biden ticket. Biden is an old school type of politician that has nice foriegn policy expr. and isn't affraid to speak his mind (for better or worse) and also go up against his party. I think he could be a good person for Obama to bounce ideas off of with regards to foreign policy in particular. The environmental stance of the democrats in general has always been more along the lines of what I would like to see when compared to the republicans. Although I like a candidate like Nader when it comes to the environment. I don't care if gay people marry so I don't really like that republicans trying to involve government in issues like that and abortion. It's just not the governments (state, federal or local) business IMO. I don't really care very much about the gun deals as I think while limiting handguns and assault rifles would probably decrease violent crime...it's also damn near impossible to implement and people could go out and probably find the weapons regardless of their use being legal or not. The current republican administration has driven the country into severe debt...I see that continuing with McCain/Palin due to perpetuation of the same economic policy of the current administration. I think Obama in particular is less influenced by old school politics and big business...although not totally detached. Palin seems to be pretty entrenched in the oil industry so I don't see the McCain/Palin ticket doing anything to aggressively move the country away from our dependence on oil. Palin being influenced by oil companies also makes me think it’ll be more of the same pandering to oil and big business even though she hasn’t been in politics very long. Shit, I could go on and on but that's sort of where I'm coming from.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Short answer: He is running against Obama.

Obama is far too socialist/big government/more taxes/gov solutions to personal problems, for me. Obama represents the antithesis of what I want/think the government should be.

Obama says he intends to lower your tax rates. Forgive my presumption here, but you just don't come off as the kind of person making over 250k/year. On the other hand, it is magnaimous of you to shoulder paying for the marshalling of the largest federal government in history under the Bush regime.

His VP choice may well be the most important VP choice in our lifetime. Because of his age. But I am not a "values voter" I don't care what someone believes about god or abortion or gay rights or a hundred other social issues. The POTUS should not be involved in those issues. Those should be dealt with on the state level, and largely are. They do appoint supreme court justices but they have to be confirmed by congress. It is looking like there is going to be a dem controlled congress this time around so it's all good.

"Shouldn't " is a long way off into fairy land here, bub.

As far as the fact that she has been in a bubble for most of her life, I kind of like it.

So ultimately, you're confessing to agree with the Arch Druid's original point.

Obama got me all hopped up for change and I think out of all the people on the ticket, McCain/Palin is the most capable of creating it. McCain has one term in him and is accomplished at telling people what they can go do with themselves if he doesn't like them. He also has a history of bucking his own party. Palin is not a political insider and I don't think she will ever be. So I'm pretty happy with a McCain/Palin ticket.

I think the point Rube is making is that he's a hopeless partisan. Give him credit for stating it like it is.

Originally Posted by Tippster

I still want to see the evidence that Democrats are for Taxing the hell out of everybody and creating huge government bureaucracies and the Republicans are fiscally conservative and for limited governmental roles in our daily lives. This has absolutely NOT been the case since Ronald Reagan won office in 1980... the polar opposite has been the case.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

We have over committed ourselves on several fronts IMO. Obama wants to do more of the same. I think it is really sad that we have gotten to the place where one of the most pressing questions we face today is "how is the government going to pay for everything". This country doesn't exist to support a government. Yet that is the mentality we have adopted because we have been thinking of the government as the solution to our problems rather than a necessary evil that should be kept as small as possible. McCain's stated intent at least is to shrink government and cut taxes. He has proven himself to be enough of a pissy little firebrand that I believe he just might do it, not caring who he has to piss off in the process.

So while McCain's plan may not be a proven path to success, Obama's plan is taking us in the direction that got us in this mess in the first place.

I don't care about historic stereotypes. I care what the candidates are saying this time around, and what their histories tell us about them. If you believe Obama, he will make the government larger. If you believe McCain he will make government smaller.

If someone wants smaller government there is only one choice for that.

Bill Clinton in 2008?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

I don't care about historic stereotypes. I care what the candidates are saying this time around, and what their histories tell us about them..

Aren't the candidates "histories" the same as "historical stereotypes"?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

If you believe McCain he will make government smaller.

Can you name some federal programs that McCain plans on eliminating or shrinking?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

If someone wants smaller government there is only one choice for that.

Yep, his name is Bob Barr.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Aren't the candidates "histories" the same as "historical stereotypes"?

I read it as party stereotypes, but it still doesn't make sense. The GOP used to be more focused on financial responsibililty, but not so since Nixon.

If you're for small government and given the Republican controlled congress and POTUS (up until 2 years ago) why is the government bigger than ever and our debt bigger than ever? And as far as the non invasive government, another cawing point, why are our rights to privacy being eroded?

Nothing the GOP stands for or is even extolled is what they do. But dammit, team loyalty is what matters.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

If someone wants smaller government there is only one choice for that.

Are the Dems or Republicans suggesting an increase in the size of the federal gov? Or is this just something you're basing off of "historical stereotypes".

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Obama is far too socialist/big government/more taxes/gov solutions to personal problems, for me.

Don't know much about the realities of economics do you? Pretty happy with what Bush has done for you and the economy? Ready & willing to vote for more of the same?

When are people going to figure out that there are a number of ways "secret taxes" happen - including various combinations of inflation, deficit spending, bracket creep, etc. ?????

If you have not figured it out already, for most Americans, after the music stops every dollar of Bush "tax cuts" will cost several dollars. But it sounded good. Too bad you got to pay maybe a couple bucks for each one you got. I'll personally offer you that deal 7 days a week . And now you are ready to bark, roll over, sit, etc for the next doddering idiot who snaps his fingers and utters the words "tax cuts"? So sad...

Originally Posted by lemon boy

C
Yep, his name is Bob Barr.

You mean "I'll darn good and well tell you what to do with your uterus" small government Bob Barr? That Bob Barr? I just want to be sure we are talking the same "small government"...

Ultimately, this election will be decided on one of two factors. The first is a simple issue. If a majority of voters decide that they can cast their vote for a black man, Obama wins. If not, then McCain wins. Whether we like it or not, race has been in this country's politics since the civil war. The second issue is a little more "conspiracy theorist" based. This country is run by and for the wealthy; the top 2-3% on the economic scale. They don't care about you and me, and they get what they want. They wanted Clinton in '92, and he gave them Nafta while claiming to the rest of us that he felt our pain. They wanted Bush, because the world economy runs on oil and well, do the math. I don't know who they want this time. I thought they wanted Hillary and I'm hoping now that maybe democracy will work this time and we'll actually elect someone fair and square.

Originally Posted by spindrift

You mean "I'll darn good and well tell you what to do with your uterus" small government Bob Barr? That Bob Barr? I just want to be sure we are talking the same "small government"...

dude, you're gonna confuse our less intellectually nimble members with that kind of talk.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Obama is far too socialist

I doubt you could even explain what socialism is without cut and pasting the internetz or quoting Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Savage sound bites.

Let alone accurately detect it in a candidate.

I don't have the patience this afternoon to read this whole page of drivel...

But I will comment that;

The idea that being a Governor makes you a better President is FAIL!!!

The truth is that being a Governor make you a better Presidential CANDIDATE. Without the hundreds of specific votes on myriad of policy, your enemies have little ammunition with with to nail you on some issue.

Also, the idea that having more experience makes you a better President is FAIL!!!

Using this stupid idea, George W Bush would be a fuckin fantastic President because he already has 7.5 years of ACTUAL experience as President. Only an idiot would even consider this the truth these days.

MY REVELATION TO YOU COMMONERS:
Having a broad base of knowledge, and the intellect to turn that knowledge into wisdom in the decisions faced by a President is THE measure of a good President.

Done! And "you're welcome."

Tim, sit down and have a drink.