Perhaps because Bush was governor of one of the largest states in the Union and thus did have a modicum of executive experience?
Granted, things haven't turned out as well as one would hope, but to compare Roger Clinton's experience to Bush's experience is, well, like comparing apples to pickup trucks.
It is definitely a stretch. It is weak. There were quite a few that did speak to his "experience level" back then, but reality is that he was a Governor, Roger is just another schmuck.Bush was governor of the state with the weakest exucitive in the nation. Bush did absolutly 0 as Gov. of Texas, and I do not belive it is a stretch to compare them.
It is definitely a stretch. It is weak. There were quite a few that did speak to his "experience level" back then, but reality is that he was a Governor, Roger is just another schmuck.
It is definitely a stretch. It is weak. There were quite a few that did speak to his "experience level" back then, but reality is that he was a Governor, Roger is just another schmuck.
Just another schmuck! Now that is a winning campaign slogan if I ever heard one. That’s what the Republicans have really been telling us for 8 years “vote for us, Kerry is an elitist windsurfer, and bush is just another schmuck!” And really, I think it’s even catchier than Just Folks.
The fact that he ran for office and was elected, yes, matters when considering this kind of thing.So the fact that, nintendo and nap, Bush was a governor makes the difference to you?
The fact that he ran for office and was elected, yes, matters when considering this kind of thing.
Yup. And if he was running it wouldn't be his experience level, other than "mayor to president" as there was for Rudy, it would be about his drug use.Okay then take out Roger Clinton and add in Marion Barry. He ran for office and was elected twice!
The fact that he ran for office and was elected, yes, matters when considering this kind of thing.
Also the fact that there were many, especially during the Primary, that spoke about his experience level as a negative.
Bush was governor of the state with the weakest exucitive in the nation. Bush did absolutly 0 as Gov. of Texas, and I do not belive it is a stretch to compare them.
I remember Hannity talking about that. I remember he supported McCain, and was telling his listeners that they shouldn't vote for someone like Bush.
My, how times have changed. Bush has been a God for him ever since he got the nomination.
Okay then take out Roger Clinton and add in Marion Barry. He ran for office and was elected twice!
Yup. And if he was running it wouldn't be his experience level, other than "mayor to president" as there was for Rudy, it would be about his drug use.
The reality is that people did speak against him, from his own party, when selecting the nominee.
That you reject this piece of memory doesn't change that it happened. However, comparing Roger to Bush was silly.
Confirmed, publicized druggie and seeker of prostitutes. It is still different I think. I realize that a lot of money was spent to make Bush in to the public figure he was by 2000 but he was never crossways with law enforcement along the way. Rumors of drug use are a lot different that a stings video.
He didn't have a video of himself using it illegally while in office, get convicted, spend time in jail, then get elected to office again.Bush has all but admited to cocaine use.
One. But it was long before he was Governor. And again, that didn't stop people from speaking against Bush because of experience level when he was running for the nomination.Sure Bush was crossways with law enforcement, how many DUI convictions did he have?