Quote:
Originally Posted by YOhio
I think a President should possess skills that translate well to executive leadership, i.e. CEO or Governor. Lack of experience in these areas isn't necessarily a disqualifier, but it does leave voters without a gauge to determine whether the individual has those skills. That may be one of the reasons why American voters have been so reluctant to elect individuals from the legislative branch.
Obama may have had an impressive career as a community organizer, civil rights attorney and he has certainly made a name for himself in the Illinois and U.S. Senate. But it is hard to point to any of his individual accomplishments and state with a certainty that this experience demonstrates executive leadership.
I also like to look at a U.S. Senator and see what they've accomplished in that role. For example, Senators Biden and Lugar have real credibility on areas of foreign affairs. Senators Leahy and Specter are the authority on the judiciary. These are the people that the Sunday morning shows call on specific matters of public policy. They have taken opportunities to become subject matter experts and they're credible leaders within their realm. I don't see that from Senator Obama. What committees does he sit on? What influence does he have in those committees? What leadership has he demonstrated in the Senate? Even Hillary has become a minor expert on Iraq within the Senate. I am just not convinced that Senator Obama has the stripes to become a strong executive.
|
Good answer. I agree with basically all of that. I do wonder, however, how often people actually do judge the former governors on their performance rather than just saying "he was once a governor, and is therefore qualified."
I'm not interested enough to do a bunch of research, but from what I've seen, Huckabee seems to have run Arkansas in a manner very similar to how Bush is running the country. Romney I don't know as much about, other than the fact that his attitudes and policies as governor were 180 degrees from where they are now. It seems obvious to me that if a former governor performed poorly during his time in office that should place him below a candidate that has had less experience.
Did anyone else see Romney's Russert interview? Would anyone like to argue that it was not a complete disaster? How can you like that guy, experience notwithstanding, when his positions are so blatantly dishonest and only held in order to win votes? His dissembling when faced with his former self was a sight to behold. I also loved how quickly he backpedaled from his "freedom requires religion" bullshit when faced with a couple very obvious implications of such a ridiculous statement that he hadn't even considered. Even so, he refused to back away from it completely, preferring instead to hold two completely contradictory positions on the issue. I guess if it works for everything else...