Top Democratic contenders have no chief executive experience among them

DamnYankee

DamnYankee

Loyal to the end
By David Broder
It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night's MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — have not a day of chief executive experience behind them.

By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their home states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York City, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing.
Click to expand...
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_7989420

Why should that stop the Democrats from claiming that they have any experience at all?
 
It appears that it served him well, as he has served us so well.

Don't let your hatred of the man cloud your judgement of him, or these candidates.
 
I just want to elect somebody that protects my freedom and liberities, and never lies to me. I feel a joe shmoe can do a better job for us. I don't believe a lot of exp is needed to make right vrs wrong decisions. All one has to be is fair.

A natural born citizen
at least 35 years old
(what is the 3rd requirement for the job?)

are the three requirements.

Not rich
with rich friends to take care of
and must be elite


We just need somebody with integrity that does the right thing for Americas freedom.

I can do the stinking job, and you all would be better off than almost any other candidate. I would have a hard time beating the knowledge that Fred Thompson has thoug---he is a better man than I for the job. Other than Ron Paul, only Thompson says waht he means--not what the polls say.
 
You don't elect a presidential candidate for their "experience". It's not like like we're electing an engineer to construct a bridge or something. We're electing someone to make public policy decisions, and we elect them because of their beliefs regarding those decisions.
 
Southern Man said:
It appears that it served him well, as he has served us so well.

Don't let your hatred of the man cloud your judgement of him, or these candidates.
Click to expand...
you are one of the 28-30% who would have to see him in bed with a live boy or a dead girl before you changed your opinion of him. He has lied to us, he has put soldiers in harms way that was not necessary, and avoided going after the people that actually did attack us, he has harmed the place in the world that the US once held. I don't hate him, but I do know that in 40 years historians will not look kindly on his stint as president. Jimmy Carter is thankful for the GW Bush Presidency.
 
Socrtease said:
you are one of the 28-30% who would have to see him in bed with a live boy or a dead girl before you changed your opinion of him. He has lied to us, he has put soldiers in harms way that was not necessary, and avoided going after the people that actually did attack us, he has harmed the place in the world that the US once held. I don't hate him, but I do know that in 40 years historians will not look kindly on his stint as president. Jimmy Carter is thankful for the GW Bush Presidency.
Click to expand...

If that happened, Soc, then surely, someone just thew that dead girl on his bed while he was sleeping. We better start another war, preferably with Iran, to figure out who...
 
Socrtease said:
you are one of the 28-30% who would have to see him in bed with a live boy or a dead girl before you changed your opinion of him. He has lied to us, he has put soldiers in harms way that was not necessary, and avoided going after the people that actually did attack us, he has harmed the place in the world that the US once held. I don't hate him, but I do know that in 40 years historians will not look kindly on his stint as president. Jimmy Carter is thankful for the GW Bush Presidency.
Click to expand...

if the other one in the bed with Bush was a liberal it would be the darned liberals fault.
 
Watermark said:
;)

I mean, seriously, let's think about this. If Hillary was the only governer in the race, would SM vote for her?
Click to expand...
No I wouldn't, but that's not the point of the OP. These Democrats are arguing that they are more qualified than the other, yet none of them has any qualifications.
 
Socrtease said:
you are one of the 28-30% who would have to see him in bed with a live boy or a dead girl before you changed your opinion of him. He has lied to us, he has put soldiers in harms way that was not necessary, and avoided going after the people that actually did attack us, he has harmed the place in the world that the US once held. I don't hate him, but I do know that in 40 years historians will not look kindly on his stint as president. Jimmy Carter is thankful for the GW Bush Presidency.
Click to expand...
I disagree with all your points but will not bother responding as they would be best argued in several other threads.

In other words the answer to "Democrats have no experiece" is not "George Bush lied".
 
Southern Man said:
No I wouldn't, but that's not the point of the OP. These Democrats are arguing that they are more qualified than the other, yet none of them has any qualifications.
Click to expand...


I'm sure I can arbitrarily create all sorts of "qualifications" for president that none on the GOP side can meet. For example, historically, Presidents have mostly been lawyers. None of the GOP front-runners are attorneys (Giuliani is trained as an attorney but he's not a front-runner. Mitt went to law school but never practiced law).

It's not difficult to do this arbitrary line-drawing.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm sure I can arbitrarily create all sorts of "qualifications" for president that none on the GOP side can meet. For example, historically, Presidents have mostly been lawyers. None of the GOP front-runners are attorneys (Giuliani is trained as an attorney but he's not a front-runner. Mitt went to law school but never practiced law).

It's not difficult to do this arbitrary line-drawing.
Click to expand...
Having experience as a chief executive for a job for chief executive is by no means arbitrary. Nice Straw Man though! :)
 
Southern Man said:
Having experience as a chief executive for a job for chief executive is by no means arbitrary. Nice Straw Man though! :)
Click to expand...

It's arbitrary as far as you are presenting it as a requirement, the only relevant experience. Think about it. If having chief executive experience is the only requirement to become a chief executive, we'd never have any new chief executives.
 
Dungheap said:
It's arbitrary as far as you are presenting it as a requirement, the only relevant experience. Think about it. If having chief executive experience is the only requirement to become a chief executive, we'd never have any new chief executives.
Click to expand...
Still stuck on the Straw Man tactic I see. It didn't work the first time, so what makes you think it will work this time?

You get to be a small time chief exec by showing initiative. Then a medium sized chief exec by being a good small one. And so on and so forth. The POTUS is a fairly big-deal chief exec, so you'd best have some relevant experience somewhere!

And BTW when did I use the phrase "only"?
 
Southern Man said:
Still stuck on the Straw Man tactic I see. It didn't work the first time, so what makes you think it will work this time?

You get to be a small time chief exec by showing initiative. Then a medium sized chief exec by being a good small one. And so on and so forth. The POTUS is a fairly big-deal chief exec, so you'd best have some relevant experience somewhere!

And BTW when did I use the phrase "only"?
Click to expand...


You said this:

Southern Man said:
These Democrats are arguing that they are more qualified than the other, yet none of them has any qualifications.
Click to expand...

By saying that none of them has any qualifications, you are implying that the only qualification for president is chief executive experience. No?

I'd also add that it is not creating a straw man to simply point out that the specific qualification you set forth as the only relevant qualification for selecting a president is nonsense.
 
Watermark said:
;)

I mean, seriously, let's think about this. If Hillary was the only governer in the race, would SM vote for her?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm--probably not. No one would be there to pick on her to make her cry. That may be the main reason why she won in NH primary. That, and she probably had a lot of welfare people from bordering states go there to vote for her. yes, they can do that in NH. If you say your moving there, they will let you vote. Those numbers in NH and Michigan are heavly skewed--I think anyway.

I know I would not vote for her--no matter what.
 
Dungheap said:
You said this:



By saying that none of them has any qualifications, you are implying that the only qualification for president is chief executive experience. No?

I'd also add that it is not creating a straw man to simply point out that the specific qualification you set forth as the only relevant qualification for selecting a president is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Point taken!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top