If Romney were to withdraw, who gets your vote?

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Do you have daughters? That's certainly not what I would tell my daughters.

You could tell her ,Technically ..ladies arenot good enough at making "huge mess" .i am certain the point would be taken handsomely well.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

I'm not sure about that. The Republicans are still blaming Clinton for anything bad that happened the last eight years and if a Demo wins they will blame W for anything bad that happens the next four.

I agree. I should have made the disctinction...how much of the GOOD is traced back to the original president. Sitting Presidents dont sit back idly and allocate credit to past Presidents.

So to the notion of W's legacy hinging on the long-term outcome of Iraq, I think that such an idea is hopeless romanticism.

Once again, fast forward 10 years, Iraq now has voting and has made progress, is everyone all of a sudden going to say, "Hmmm....I guess W was a great President after all, and he wasnt a dimwit." Possible, but not likely.

W's legacy is largely set in stone at this point.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I agree. I should have made the disctinction...how much of the GOOD is traced back to the original president. Sitting Presidents dont sit back idly and allocate credit to past Presidents.

So to the notion of W's legacy hinging on the long-term outcome of Iraq, I think that such an idea is hopeless romanticism.

Once again, fast forward 10 years, Iraq now has voting and has made progress, is everyone all of a sudden going to say, "Hmmm....I guess W was a great President after all, and he wasnt a dimwit." Possible, but not likely.

W's legacy is largely set in stone at this point.

It depends on who is doing the judging. Popular sentiment or historians.

I doubt W will ever be judged a great president because he didn't peddle his story very well. However, history may judge him to have made some decisions which ultimately turned out better than originally feared. In some respect, W may be doing what he believes is correct despite the political damage. I don't agree with him, but if that is what he is doing, it is novel for politician.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You are reading too many implications into my topic.

Because executive experience is important, doesn't mean I believe it guarantees success but it does send up a big red flag. Obama has almost no experience on anything executive.

Obama lacks the executive experience of Giuliani, Richardson, and Romney. That is significant to me. And his economic program is laughable but it's sellable to the ignorant masses who are asses.

I could be reading too much into it, so sorry if I am.

I am still cloudy on your concern about executive experience. In what scenario would Obama's "lack" of executive experience harm us, our country, etc? What is it that you are envisioning?

What executive experience does Rudy have? His post 9/11 leadership was admirable. However, how much of that was his leadership and how much of that was a natural result of 9/11 solidarity, emotion, and a desire to fix New York? I mean, what did Rudy do that most other mayors, had they been mayor at the time, would not have done?

The ironic thing about Rudy is that many point to his post 9/11 work as qualifying for office. Really, what he did for NYC prior to 9/11 is way more impressive. Does anyone remember Times Square, subways, cabs, and Port Authority prior to Rudy's campaign to clean up the city?

I agree that Romney has a history of leading groups, fixing broken companies, creating value, etc..although when he left office in Mass, his approval ratings were not great, even in his own party.

Of all the candidates running right now, none of them have much specific experience that qualifies them head and shoulders above another candidate. You could actually make an argument that your gal Hillary has the most experience running the White House.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It depends on who is doing the judging. Popular sentiment or historians.

I doubt W will ever be judged a great president because he didn't peddle his story very well. However, history may judge him to have made some decisions which ultimately turned out better than originally feared. In some respect, W may be doing what he believes is correct despite the political damage. I don't agree with him, but if that is what he is doing, it is novel for politician.

Agreed.

Bush is either an idiot who has no idea what he's doing or an idiot who doesn't know that he's supposed to be driven by polls.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I could be reading too much into it, so sorry if I am.

I am still cloudy on your concern about executive experience. In what scenario would Obama's "lack" of executive experience harm us, our country, etc? What is it that you are envisioning?

What executive experience does Rudy have? His post 9/11 leadership was admirable. However, how much of that was his leadership and how much of that was a natural result of 9/11 solidarity, emotion, and a desire to fix New York? I mean, what did Rudy do that most other mayors, had they been mayor at the time, would not have done?

The ironic thing about Rudy is that many point to his post 9/11 work as qualifying for office. Really, what he did for NYC prior to 9/11 is way more impressive. Does anyone remember Times Square, subways, cabs, and Port Authority prior to Rudy's campaign to clean up the city?

I agree that Romney has a history of leading groups, fixing broken companies, creating value, etc..although when he left office in Mass, his approval ratings were not great, even in his own party.

Of all the candidates running right now, none of them have much specific experience that qualifies them head and shoulders above another candidate. You could actually make an argument that your gal Hillary has the most experience running the White House.

Rudy was the chief executive for the largest city in our country, somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 million persons. His public was larger than most states.

It had a tremendous bureaucracy, a crime problem for which he did a lot to clean up. He managed the 9/11 problems well as opposed to how W did it.

I'm not exactly concerned with ratings as I am with demonstrable executive leadership abilities.

Obama is a junior Senator. Whoop ti do.

Now if Harry Reid were running, his Senate Leadership position could translate into executive experience.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It depends on who is doing the judging. Popular sentiment or historians.

I doubt W will ever be judged a great president because he didn't peddle his story very well. However, history may judge him to have made some decisions which ultimately turned out better than originally feared. In some respect, W may be doing what he believes is correct despite the political damage. I don't agree with him, but if that is what he is doing, it is novel for politician.

Are we talking about W or about Mr Smith going to Washington?

W is no saint. He wanted to go down in history as the guy who liberated the Middle East. He rolled the dice and crapped out. He has alienated half the country, as well as much of the Western world, and almost entirely ignored domestic issues in the process. Self belief in ones actions is admirable. It is nice to believe in what you are doing. But the more important question to ask first is whether you KNOW what you are doing. W does not.

As of right now, what do historians tell us about W that popular sentiment does not? Often, they are one in the same, as in W's case.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Are we talking about W or about Mr Smith going to Washington?

W is no saint. He wanted to go down in history as the guy who liberated the Middle East. He rolled the dice and crapped out. He has alienated half the country, as well as much of the Western world, and almost entirely ignored domestic issues in the process. Self belief in ones actions is admirable. It is nice to believe in what you are doing. But the more important question to ask first is whether you KNOW what you are doing. W does not.

As of right now, what do historians tell us about W that popular sentiment does not? Often, they are one in the same, as in W's case.

I disagree. If Iraq were to become a stable representative non-religious republic that some how paved the way for better representation for Muslims in the Middle East, then he might be considered a visionary. I don't predict that but I would be willing to admit my mistake if it turns around.

The military is starting to win the hearts and minds of the local populace.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Rudy was the chief executive for the largest city in our country, somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 million persons. His public was larger than most states.

It had a tremendous bureaucracy, a crime problem for which he did a lot to clean up. He managed the 9/11 problems well as opposed to how W did it.

I'm not exactly concerned with ratings as I am with demonstrable executive leadership abilities.

Obama is a junior Senator. Whoop ti do.

Now if Harry Reid were running, his Senate Leadership position could translate into executive experience.

Well, in that case, you should simply vote for the candidate that represents the largest constituency. Hillary. Her public is Rudys public, plus everyone over the bridge in Westchester all the way up to the northern border.

Rudy doesnt know Jack about the tricky politics of Schenectady.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Well, in that case, you should simply vote for the candidate that represents the largest constituency. Hillary. Her public is Rudys public, plus everyone over the bridge in Westchester all the way up to the northern border.

Rudy doesnt know Jack about the tricky politics of Schenectady.

Hillary is not an executive and doesn't manage a bureaucracy.

It's not the size of the constituency that matters but the fact of administering and rendering executive service over a large body that presents the possibility that person can handle the toughest job in the world.