Perhaps the average citizen is too naive - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Archaea · 08-03-2007, 02:43 PM

but what makes the average voter want to entrust the toughest political job to somebody who has never accomplished anything?

If Hillary or Obama are serious candidates, they've never accomplished anything. If you were interviewing for President you would find them unqualified.

Think about it, if you were the IBM board, and looked for somebody to guide your company neither Hillary nor Obama would ever be seriously considered.

Neither has ever managed or accomplished anything, and voters are willing to entrust the most dangerous and difficult job to unqualified bozos?

Even Romney or Giuliani are light in experience but they're loads more qualified and successful than either Democratic front runner.

Name one situation where either has managed a situation where somebody other than their own personal selves have benefitted. You cannot. It's crazy to risk on the job training.

YOhio · 08-03-2007, 02:59 PM

This depends on what you consider accomplishments. They have both great academic accomplishments, have been elected by an entire state, and motivated people to contribute millions of dollars to their presidential campaign.

On the other hand, It's been decades since Hillary Clinton has billed an hour as an attorney. Barack Obama's work experience is as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer. What the hell is a "community organizer?" Civil rights lawyer? Admirable, but it says nothing to his competence in managing the federal bureacracy.

I think what you're getting at is that you don't like career politicians. I'm with you on that.

On a sidenote, one of the reasons I like Romney is that he is clearly the most accomplished in his non-governmental endeavors. He's not a good politician and for that I like him. He says strange things, has no foreign policy experience, and is opportunistic. But that's how businessmen work. They see opportunity and they get it. I think he'll be the most competent manager the nation needs to reign in federal spending, attempt to streamline the federal bureacracy, and run a scandal free administration. After 16 years of the opposite, it would be a nice change.

BYU71 · 08-03-2007, 03:07 PM

The press can be so frustrating. I hear many times how strong the democratic field is. They may be strong on personality and star power, but what else. Obama give nice upbeat speaches. He sticks his foot in his mouth, but the press likes him and basically gives him a pass. Hillary, well everyone knows what Hillary is like. I just can't see her running the Country. Not because she is a woman. I could see Condie Rice running the Country easily. Edwards, what a dick and that is all I have to say about him.

The press then says the Repub. field is weak because undecided is the candidate with the highest percentage. Really, because you are undecided between two choices that means both choices are weak.

I would love to be able to sit there and comment after each of these press guys make a comment. My line would always be, really, you think the American people are that stupid to buy what you just said.

YOhio · 08-03-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that both Obama and Hillary could land on virtually any board in this nation tomorrow, if they wanted to.

Sure they could, but it wouldn't be for their private sector accomplishments or their business judgment. They would merely be a name that would serve to increase the prestige/credibility of the company or to garner attention from the Democrats in power.

Archaea · 08-03-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that both Obama and Hillary could land on virtually any board in this nation tomorrow, if they wanted to.

They could, but they could not function as a CEO.

My point is not do they have political clout, but do they have the administrative skills to manage the toughest job out there. We don't have a clue, because they've never been in a managerial position.

Yes they could land such a position because of public notoriety, but I don't see them capable of galvanizing and governing. Being elected is half the battle. Bush got elected but he couldn't govern.

And he had the qualification of being a Texas governor and some managerial experience, yet his choices for assistants killed him.

Neither Hillary nor Obama have ever achieved anything in terms of management. They have not even held a management position.

We will to give the keys to nukes, to enfants terribles. That's insane.

If you wanted to govern Chrysler out of the mess, you wouldn't select either to be CEO.

Why would you hand the keys to do a harder job? They will fail if elected.

Archaea · 08-03-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOhio

Sure they could, but it wouldn't be for their private sector accomplishments or their business judgment. They would merely be a name that would serve to increase the prestige/credibility of the company or to garner attention from the Democrats in power.

Exactly.

It would be based on exposure, not on merit. Or potential access to juice or funds.

non sequitur · 08-03-2007, 07:19 PM

Ronald Reagan was an actor and he turned out to be one of the best presidents of the last 50 years. The president is not a CEO. His basic qualifications are to have vision and to be a strong leader. The CEO of IBM is a fantastic business man, but I would never want him to be President of the United States.

hyrum · 08-03-2007, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Ronald Reagan was an actor and he turned out to be one of the best presidents of the last 50 years. The president is not a CEO. His basic qualifications are to have vision and to be a strong leader. The CEO of IBM is a fantastic business man, but I would never want to be President of the United States.

Has the President of Toyota thrown his hat in the ring?

Archaea · 08-03-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Ronald Reagan was an actor and he turned out to be one of the best presidents of the last 50 years. The president is not a CEO. His basic qualifications are to have vision and to be a strong leader. The CEO of IBM is a fantastic business man, but I would never want him to be President of the United States.

Ronald Reagan had also had training in the form of serving as Governor of California, a good sized country in its own right. He had to deal with Sacramento. He had demonstrated management skills in the political arena, he had been an executive.

MikeWaters · 08-03-2007, 08:48 PM

The person most prepared to be president is John McCain hands down.

But no one wants him.

08-03-2007, 02:43 PM	#1
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Perhaps the average citizen is too naive but what makes the average voter want to entrust the toughest political job to somebody who has never accomplished anything? If Hillary or Obama are serious candidates, they've never accomplished anything. If you were interviewing for President you would find them unqualified. Think about it, if you were the IBM board, and looked for somebody to guide your company neither Hillary nor Obama would ever be seriously considered. Neither has ever managed or accomplished anything, and voters are willing to entrust the most dangerous and difficult job to unqualified bozos? Even Romney or Giuliani are light in experience but they're loads more qualified and successful than either Democratic front runner. Name one situation where either has managed a situation where somebody other than their own personal selves have benefitted. You cannot. It's crazy to risk on the job training. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 08-03-2007 at 02:54 PM.

08-03-2007, 07:19 PM	#7
non sequitur Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,964	Ronald Reagan was an actor and he turned out to be one of the best presidents of the last 50 years. The president is not a CEO. His basic qualifications are to have vision and to be a strong leader. The CEO of IBM is a fantastic business man, but I would never want him to be President of the United States. __________________ ...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan Last edited by non sequitur; 08-03-2007 at 07:35 PM.

08-03-2007, 02:59 PM	#2
YOhio AKA SeattleNewt Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,055	This depends on what you consider accomplishments. They have both great academic accomplishments, have been elected by an entire state, and motivated people to contribute millions of dollars to their presidential campaign. On the other hand, It's been decades since Hillary Clinton has billed an hour as an attorney. Barack Obama's work experience is as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer. What the hell is a "community organizer?" Civil rights lawyer? Admirable, but it says nothing to his competence in managing the federal bureacracy. I think what you're getting at is that you don't like career politicians. I'm with you on that. On a sidenote, one of the reasons I like Romney is that he is clearly the most accomplished in his non-governmental endeavors. He's not a good politician and for that I like him. He says strange things, has no foreign policy experience, and is opportunistic. But that's how businessmen work. They see opportunity and they get it. I think he'll be the most competent manager the nation needs to reign in federal spending, attempt to streamline the federal bureacracy, and run a scandal free administration. After 16 years of the opposite, it would be a nice change.

08-03-2007, 03:07 PM	#3
BYU71 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,084	The press can be so frustrating. I hear many times how strong the democratic field is. They may be strong on personality and star power, but what else. Obama give nice upbeat speaches. He sticks his foot in his mouth, but the press likes him and basically gives him a pass. Hillary, well everyone knows what Hillary is like. I just can't see her running the Country. Not because she is a woman. I could see Condie Rice running the Country easily. Edwards, what a dick and that is all I have to say about him. The press then says the Repub. field is weak because undecided is the candidate with the highest percentage. Really, because you are undecided between two choices that means both choices are weak. I would love to be able to sit there and comment after each of these press guys make a comment. My line would always be, really, you think the American people are that stupid to buy what you just said.

08-03-2007, 08:48 PM	#10
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	The person most prepared to be president is John McCain hands down. But no one wants him.