Political Experience

[diznygirl]

I'm a little confused on this - I've heard people say they are voting for Bush based on his record - that his is better than Kerry's. So I'm doing my research and I find that Bush was governor of Texas for 2 of his 6 years when he announced he was running for president. He served four years. And that the Texas Legislature only meets every 2 years. He did not serve in any politcal office before this - he was elected while he was working for the Texas Rangers baseball team. And he has been president now for 4 years.

Total politcal experience - 8 years

Meanwhile Kerry served 2 years as Lt. Gov. of Mass. and has been a US Senator for 20+ years.

Total experience - 22+ years.

So when people say they are voting for Bush based on his record I'm wondering - What record? Is it better that he has done nothing and that is better than Kerry who was in office and people don't like what he's done?

I'm still reading Kerry's voting records - I'll see if I agree with how he's voted on stuff.

In the meantime, what about the level of experience each candidate has?

 

[POOH&PIGLET]

So let me get this straight, 8 years is "nothing."

 

[minniecarousel]

Gee - I didn't read that as 8 years is nothing. I think the OP is using simple math: 22 years is more than 8 years.

 

[DawnCt1]

Lt Gov. in Massachusetts is an elected office but there isn't a lot of responsibility that goes with it. (Remember Jane Swift?)
While being a senator is nice, Kerry has never had a major leadership role nor has he introduced any significant legislation. In the last year he has spent very little time there. His senate record is not one to be proud of. He has been on the wrong side of history with every vote for the last twenty something years. A governor of a state however has to deal with some of the same issues as a president; budgets, laws, direction, the economy, etc.

 

[Doug123]

Just because something is voiced by one side or the other, doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Unfortunately, too many voters actually believe anything they hear.

Kerry has the experience, certainly a lot more than Bush did going into the position.

 

[mommytutu]

Bush's "lack of experience" (for lack of a better term) is one reason why I didn't vote for him in 2000. The gov. of Texas really has very little power. At the end of 1999, the Texas Constitution had been amended 377 times. Politicllly parts of Texas are a big mess and it has nothing to do with GW as a former gov...it has always been a mess. I think the Texas Constitution has been amended close to 400 times by now. By contrast the US Constitution has been amended 27 times. I'm not real impressed by any politian from Texas. NOW, having said that...I can't vote for John Kerry. I concider a lot more then a person's experience and John Kerry doesn't fit the bill....Bush isn't a perfect fit either, but he's much closer then Kerry. I also think big deal if Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years....what does he have to show for it?

 

[diznygirl]

Sorry for the term "nothing" - I was running out the door as I posted this and I didn't edit.

I do mean "less."

A follow up question: As a senator, what would be considered "something to show for it?"

 

[brerrabbit]

I think the term "experience" in politics is sometimes very confusing. Typically we think it means he's done something longer and seen many different situations. It can also mean he's been a part of the establishment to long and has fallen into the bad politicians mindset of keeping his job and not really trying to make a change in the country because its just to hard to do.( writing and getting legeslation passed). Finally, a candiadte with more "experience" has a longer record of voting, or not voting on issues and that record can be used to show that the candidate is to __________ (fill in the blank, liberal, conservative, pro war, anti war, pro taxes, against taxes, etc.) I always find it interesting that the latest presidents from Carter forward did not to my knowledge have any "capital hill" experience prior to being elected. I think that all had been govenors prior to comming to office but had not served in congress or the senate. The interesting question is " does being a part of the establishment in Washington, in the House or Senate actually hurt your chances of winning the Presidential election?"

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by mommytutu
Bush's "lack of experience" (for lack of a better term) is one reason why I didn't vote for him in 2000. The gov. of Texas really has very little power. At the end of 1999, the Texas Constitution had been amended 377 times. Politicllly parts of Texas are a big mess and it has nothing to do with GW as a former gov...it has always been a mess. I think the Texas Constitution has been amended close to 400 times by now. By contrast the US Constitution has been amended 27 times. I'm not real impressed by any politian from Texas. NOW, having said that...I can't vote for John Kerry. I concider a lot more then a person's experience and John Kerry doesn't fit the bill....Bush isn't a perfect fit either, but he's much closer then Kerry. I also think big deal if Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years....what does he have to show for it?

Based on that logic, how much power does a Governor of Arkansas or Georgia have?

Look at Presidential election history and tell me how many sitting Senators have been elected President vs. sitting Governors. Once you find that out, think about the possible reasons.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Doug123
Just because something is voiced by one side or the other, doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Unfortunately, too many voters actually believe anything they hear.

Kerry has the experience, certainly a lot more than Bush did going into the position.

Really? How much experience does Kerry have running anything? An administration, a business, anything?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by diznygirl
Sorry for the term "nothing" - I was running out the door as I posted this and I didn't edit.

I do mean "less."

A follow up question: As a senator, what would be considered "something to show for it?"

Oh I dunno how about introducing a major bill or two supporting the things he is running on? How many healthcare bills did Kerry introduce? How many education bills did Kerry introduce.

I would say having on 5 pieces of legislation passed in 22 years is well...pitiful

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Really? How much experience does Kerry have running anything? An administration, a business, anything?

He ran a Swift boat for 4 months or did the engine man run the swift boat?

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by mommytutu
I also think big deal if Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years....what does he have to show for it?

One of Kerry's accomplishments, which doesn't get a lot of notice, is his leading the investigation into the dealings of BCCI. John Kerry was working to stop funding of terrorism "before it was cool". Even prominant Democrats asked him to back off because of the political connections of those involved with BCCI, but he went forward.

BCCI's criminality included fraud by BCCI and BCCI customers involving billions of dollars; money laundering in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas; BCCI's bribery of officials in most of those locations; support of terrorism, arms trafficking, and the sale of nuclear technologies; management of prostitution; the commission and facilitation of income tax evasion, smuggling, and illegal immigration; illicit purchases of banks and real estate; and a panoply of financial crimes limited only by the imagination of its officers and customers.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by KarenC
One of Kerry's accomplishments, which doesn't get a lot of notice, is his leading the investigation into the dealings of BCCI. John Kerry was working to stop funding of terrorism "before it was cool". Even prominant Democrats asked him to back off because of the political connections of those involved with BCCI, but he went forward.

BCCI's criminality included fraud by BCCI and BCCI customers involving billions of dollars; money laundering in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas; BCCI's bribery of officials in most of those locations; support of terrorism, arms trafficking, and the sale of nuclear technologies; management of prostitution; the commission and facilitation of income tax evasion, smuggling, and illegal immigration; illicit purchases of banks and real estate; and a panoply of financial crimes limited only by the imagination of its officers and customers.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

Hmmmm I wonder why he or his minions never mention that if it is so important.

 

[diznygirl]

More follow up questions:

"I would say having on 5 pieces of legislation" - was the word "name" forgotten? I want to make sure I know what you meant. He has his name on only 5 pieces of legislation? Yes, he should have done more.

Conversly, how many pieces of legislation does Bush have his name on?

And: "How much experience does Kerry have running anything? An administration, a business, anything?"

Does this mean that his experience as a senator counts less than Bush's experience as GM of the Texas Rangers?

 

[Rokkitsci]

This was a very thought provoking question, and I agree with most of the sentiments that have been posted prior to mine.

But - in general - when we evaluate experience we have to ask the question = "experience at doing what?"

In Bush's case, he has three years of experience at being President Of the United States and Kerry has zero. Apprly this differential to any job you want - CEO - baseball manager - convenience store clerk - hairdresser - and ask yourself = "who is more qualified?"

So, in the current situation, Bush experience swamps Kerry experience. BUT, you have to then ask = "Do I like what he did with his three years of experience in the job?"

If the answer is "yes" then there is absolutely no reason to give the job to someone else, unless you have some private deal (brother-in-law) going.

Then, if the answer is "no" you have to ask = "what makes me think the other guy would be any better?" Depending on how badly the experienced guy messed up his prior assignment, you will accept varying levels of assurance about the new guy.

****
Here is what I would ask about the new guy in such a situation:

Have you ever done anything similar to this job? What? When?

What is your most important achievement of the past five years?

What achievement are you most proud over your entire life?

What do you want to achieve in this job?

What is your decision making process?

Who are your references?

Who are your advisors?

****
Now - your question would have been even more complex to answer in the last election. When an incumbant is running, the election is almost always all about his record.

In '00 I had serious doubts about Bush's potential, based on the same short resume you cited. As I have repeatedly stated, I did not vote FOR Bush so much as AGAINST Gore in 00.

However, I happen to be completely thrilled with the job Bush has done. He has so far exceeded any expectation that I had of him that I am now a loyal fan. He has demonstrated that he can do the job. He has out-performed what anyone could possibly have expected from a new president. No new president since FDR can match his performance, with the possible exception of Reagan.

Whether you LIKE what he has accomplished or not, you have to admit that he has DONE stuff. Depending on your ideological bent, you either love it or hate it, but neither side can say with any credibility that he has not DONE stuff.

When you add to it the crises he had dumped in his lap, it is all the more remarkable that he was able to get things done.

When you add to that the fact that he had unprecedented political opposition - the character of which I personally believe to be completely without honor - you have to just sit back and marvel that the man was not paralyzed by events, fortune, and enmity.

All in all, this should not even be a close election. Bush more than deserves another term - and he deserves a term with a more honorable opposition. We need to send the LW fanatics that have taken over the once-proud Democrat party back to their holes in the ground. We need a Democrat party that wants to do good for America - not just build a political machine for the purpose of accumulating personal power.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
All in all, this should not even be a close election. Bush more than deserves another term - and he deserves a term with a more honorable opposition. We need to send the LW fanatics that have taken over the once-proud Democrat party back to their holes in the ground. We need a Democrat party that wants to do good for America - not just build a political machine for the purpose of accumulating personal power.

An administration that gets facts wrong and rushes to war is honerable......

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by diznygirl
More follow up questions:

"I would say having on 5 pieces of legislation" - was the word "name" forgotten? I want to make sure I know what you meant. He has his name on only 5 pieces of legislation? Yes, he should have done more.

Conversly, how many pieces of legislation does Bush have his name on?

And: "How much experience does Kerry have running anything? An administration, a business, anything?"

Does this mean that his experience as a senator counts less than Bush's experience as GM of the Texas Rangers?

I would have thought 8th Grade Civics would have taught you Presidents do not introduce legislation

Bush was never the General Manager of the Texas Rangers? Where did you get that idea?

Nevertheless, the job of an administrator (Governor, President) is quite different than the job of a Senator or a Representative.
History shows we rarely elect Senators to the White House. Only two in history have gone directly from the Senate to the White House--- Harding and Kennedy. Senators make policy and introduce bills. Senators have to be careful on taking public stands on certain issues as it can affect them in their bids to get re-elected. Presidents and Governors can afford to remain ambiguous on sensative issues, instead laying out broad reaching visions on say, education, taxes, welfare reform and hope the can get a congress that supports their vision. Governors can also take more credit for what is done more than Senators. Governors must manage bureacracies, essentially acting as executives. Senators rarely, if ever, get that experience.

Again, there's a reason Senators rarely get elected President.

 

[diznygirl]

Rokkitsci - that was an excellent post. There is an awful lot to think about. However, the editorial at the end was a bit much - I'm trying to see past the name calling and see each candidate on their own merits. So far all I have to go on is "Kerry is a flip-flopping spoiled rich man who did nothing with his 20 years in the senate" and "Bush is an ignorant spoiled rich kid who lied to the American peeople in order to make a lot of money for daddy's friends."

Based on your reasoning, the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. Bush has taken care of us in the last four years and we should give him another four. Problem is these last four years domestically have been pretty rough. Invading Iraq may protect us from terrorists (although I'm still not sure about it) but it does nothing to put food on the table. Who was it that promised "A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot?" He knew what he was talking about.

So I know Bush wants to cut taxes to help the economy, but how are we going to pay for the war? Is there enough money to do both?

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by diznygirl
Invading Iraq may protect us from terrorists (although I'm still not sure about it)

Actually, from what I keep hearing, it seems to of made terrorism worse.