what kind of experience?

[Lisabob 13]

Has anybody else ever seen the movie "Dave?" It is one of my favorites, sort of sweet and innocent. I've watched it plenty of times and half-jokingly, thought wistfully that "wouldn't it be better if things could really work this way?" But of course, even Dave ends up running for a lesser office than president when he launches his true political career.

 

Well here we are, watching the Republican party prepare to nominate a VP whose story could have come from a movie like "Dave." Wistful, half-joking comments aside, realistically, I'm pretty shocked that so many people seem to be ok with her lack of serious national experience, or even lengthy state-level experience. She's been governor for a very short time so a lot of her claim to preparedness rests on her 10 years of local government experience. Is being a city council member and mayor of a town of 5-8 thousand people really the right kind of experience for someone who might be president?

 

You all know from my posts that I don't think Palin's a very good VP choice, given her limited experience and most of that coming from very small local government which is another kettle of fish from running the country. But honestly now, I'm very curious. For those who disagree, why do you think her prior experience makes her qualified? (Not the same as "why don't you like Obama/Biden?") I'm not looking for arguments, just help me understand where you are coming from.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Lisabob, My answer to your query is that I have no idea. The choice seems to have given priority to political strategy. On some basis, though, she must have been judged superior to every other Republican, male or female. If you don't think it was based on her experience, what could it have been?

 

While listening to a talk show today, I heard one caller state that he KNEW the levees would fail during hurricane Gustav. He knew this because he knew that the Corps of Engineers had constructed them from newspapers. The levees were papier-mch. He was serious about this.

 

So when you ask your question, the answers could be almost anything, perhaps even something about newspaper.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Lisabob, this isn't exactly what you were looking for, but personally I think the "experience" issue is mostly a red herring. Some people vote exclusively for one party, regardless of anything else. I believe that for the remainder, the large majority of people really vote for the candidates who they perceive as having beliefs on the issues that are closest to their own, and secondarily for the candidates they perceive as being most able to "get the job done." Experience can be a factor in the second element, but it is not all of it, and not necessarily even most of it.

 

Obama won the Democratic nomination in part because he convinced a lot of people that what the country needs is "change" and that he is the best person to bring about that "change." How much sense would it make for a voter to say, "I want change, and Obama is the guy who can do it, but I'm not going to vote for him because he doesn't have enough experience." On the other hand, how much sense would it make for a conservative to say, "Sarah Palin adds to the Republican ticket a person who believes in my conservative positions down the line, to go along with McCain's somewhat softer conservativism, but I'm not voting for them because Palin doesn't have enough experience." Neither one makes much sense, and for all the talk of experience, I don't think most people think this way.

 

I believe the "experience" issue, and all of its twists and turns, has mostly been created by the political pundits on the Fox News Channel, CNN and elsewhere. (And we are hearing echoes of the same punditry on this forum, from a couple of people.) Maybe some voters will listen to the pundits who are telling them how they are supposed to think, but I do not think that is what is going to decide this election.

[gcnphkr 11]

First, there is no preparation for the Presidency. The the closest you come is being a governor or military commander, but even they pale in comparison. Second, no one can know enough. There is just too much to be an expert on everything. This is why you have a cabinet and advisers, experts in the various fields.

 

So what is it that "qualifies" a person to be President? Three things are required: a defined set of core convictions to operate from, be able to make difficult decisions and being able to prevail in the face adversity. These are all character issues, experience only allows you and others to see if you have these qualities. Great Presidents have these, poor President don't--actual experience did not matter.

 

It is clear that Sarah Palin has these three qualities in spades. She has gone up against the party machine and won, she has prevailed in person crisis, she has beaten the oil companies. What more would you like in a President?(This message has been edited by jet526)

[BrentAllen 10]

In presidential elections, governors generally beat senators. We now have a senator/governor team vs. a senator/senator team.

 

It all depends on what kind of experience you value or think is important. Being a chief executive is a much different experience than being a member of a legislative body.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Brent, generally people don't vote for a vice presidential candidate, although they might vote against one. The two candidates that people really care about are both Senators. Sarah Palin is getting a lot of attention because she is a novelty, and because many conservatives are overjoyed that one of their own has joined someone who they were somewhat dubious about on the Republican ticket. The question is, how many people who were going to vote Democratic, or not vote at all, are now going to vote for McCain because his running mate has been a governor for a year and a half. We will see, but I doubt that number is going to be very high.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

To me, Palin is a very interesting character and I look forward to finding out more about her.

 

The election seems too close to call right now, and a female VP candidate might toss more votes to McCain. (This said, it's a shame that race and gender by themselves really mean much of anything to voters, rather than something to automatically discard as irrelevant. The older I get, the easier it is to toss off that "face value" stuff).

 

I don't think Obama is unstoppable. I think the Palin choice is another way to try to break up his momentum.

[packsaddle 753]

I think NJ is right about the 'red herring' of experience. Think about any election where a challenger wins over a sitting president. People tend to raise the 'experience' thing when it supports what they already think or intend to do.

 

"I don't think Obama is unstoppable." I think Obama is easily stoppable. As a matter of fact, I think that the negative aspect of race, alone, is capable of stopping him. It is present and will wield a heavy hand at the polls. I may have grown up in a different time but I still see those forces everywhere.

I might have been more optimistic but after what the Republicans did to McCain in 2000, I'm pessimistic. That was the lowest of the low.

 

Edited part: Wow, this could have come a few minutes ago and saved me this edit. I just found out that Palin supports teaching creationism in science classes. That pretty much does it for me. There is no way I can support McCain/Palin.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Apache Bob 10]

Lisabob - I don't get much in political go arounds but wanted to respond to your question. I did enjoy 'Dave" alot.

Having heard for the last two years about the donkeys and elephants without a break I would say that I would rather have a straight talking governor in the office.

A mayor / governor, for two years, has made decisions. A two year old senator who has never done anything in office and who only promises pie in the sky is not what I want to 'lead' me or my country.

[packsaddle 753]

Apache Bob, do you think McCain will take NC easily or do you think it's going to be close? A note about policy: neither candidate has credible, realistic policies regarding energy, the economy, health care, probably other issues as well. These are some of the reasons for my pessimism.

[TheScout 10]

Originally President's were not supposed to have policies. The Congress was supposed to be the primary branch of governmment and in charge of doing the peoples work as it best represents the population. The President was supposed to merely execute the will of Congress.

 

Now everyone looks to a President for solutions and he can't fix every problem - go figure.

[Eagledad 2783]

In my view, Vice Presidential nominee Palin's experience equals Presidential nominee Obama. If you get into the details, Palin pulls ahead because Obama has been running for president since he became a senator.

 

Barry

 

[Apache Bob 10]

packsaddle - I think McCain will take NC but it will be closer that in the past for his party.

It seems like once a person becomes President that they are placed in positions where they have no real choice on how they are going to handle a certain problem. There are X number of facts they have to face on a problem and are really very few ways they can handle the problem. They take the best solution they can which they think is the best for our country. And whatever solution or policy they decide on is going to be the wrong one for some people.

Seems like we Americans like to be Monday morning quarterbacks on everything. We never can remember what it was like when the decision was being made. Only like what it is now.

 

 

[BulldogBlitz 10]

two words: Dan Quayle

 

 

[Eagledad 2783]

>>two words: Dan Quayle