If the final election were today

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

It recently came out that Ron Paul, of all people, rejects evolution. Not only that, but he used the old "It's just a theory" chestnut. No, it's not just a theory, at least not in the way that he's thinking of. I was horribly disappointed by that, so my vote goes to Obama. On the bright side, Paul's ignorance of reality is not nearly as dangerous as Huckabee's, since Huckabee wants to legislate his fantasy, while Paul doesn't want to legislate anything.

You mean you were waffling between Obama and Ron Paul? Exactly what criteria are you using to vote? Those are some odd choices to decide between. Is a belief in evolution the only factor you care about? I have to think Hillary is a believer, even if you have now lost Paul.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I think Obama has plenty of experience. My concerns with him have much more to do with certain of his policies. I'm not voting in a primary, and may not even vote in the general, and am not even close to married to Obama. I just like his (seeming, so far) honesty and his ideas about open government and working to end the quigmire that is Washington. He's maybe 20% of my perfect candidate from what I know of him, but everybody else is currently less than that.

One term as a US Senator qualifies him for the toughest political job in the world. What weed are you smoking?

Why would you believe a national candidate is honest? You can't possibly be that naive. Are you related to exUte?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You mean you were waffling between Obama and Ron Paul? Exactly what criteria are you using to vote? Those are some odd choices to decide between. Is a belief in evolution the only factor you care about? I have to think Hillary is a believer, even if you have now lost Paul.

At this point I'm not waffling between anybody. As an independent cynic who does not give money to politicians, my support means nothing for another 10.5 months, so I'm just a casual observer. I never was in love with many of Paul's policies, only his overall attitude. I think a Paul presidency would be extremely interesting, and while perhaps not a great idea long-term, would do much to at least change things up and provide a better idea of how much power states should have, etc.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

One term as a US Senator qualifies him for the toughest political job in the world. What weed are you smoking?

I am extremely concerned about another Bush getting into office. I'd rather elect a wal-mart greeter than Huckabee. What skills exactly are you looking for? You are absolutely obsessed with "experience," but to what end? Said experience is worthless if it does not translate to actual abilities. What skills does Obama lack that you think experience would fix?

Why would you believe a national candidate is honest? You can't possibly be that naive. Are you related to exUte?

Please try to avoid twisting a very tentative position (especially one obviously stated as such) into a dogmatic one. It's not becoming.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I am extremely concerned about another Bush getting into office. I'd rather elect a wal-mart greeter than Huckabee. What skills exactly are you looking for? You are absolutely obsessed with "experience," but to what end? Said experience is worthless if it does not translate to actual abilities. What skills does Obama lack that you think experience would fix?



Please try to avoid twisting a very tentative position (especially one obviously stated as such) into a dogmatic one. It's not becoming.

Phew- we CAN agree on something!

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by woot

What skills exactly are you looking for? You are absolutely obsessed with "experience," but to what end? Said experience is worthless if it does not translate to actual abilities. What skills does Obama lack that you think experience would fix?

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.

[FMCoug]

There is a reason so few senators have been elected President as opposed to Governors. Executive experience matters.

[woot]

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...

[woot]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

There is a reason so few senators have been elected President as opposed to Governors. Executive experience matters.

Again, only if it provides a window into an ability to govern competently. On its own, it is worthless.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

There is a reason so few senators have been elected President as opposed to Governors. Executive experience matters.

I thought it was because senators have such extensive legislative voting records that are easy for opponents to pick apart.