Who has more executive eperience?

[pr surfer]

We always have a "lame duck president" in the last year of a second term.

FDR

 

[profdsny]

I completely agree. Look for the libs to implode again a few years down the road when GWB starts climbing up in the "best president" polls, just like Reagan did. He confronted the worldwide global jihadist movement, for heaven's sake! Yup, history is going to treat GWB just fine. That's why I always kind of smile when someone goes all Bush Derangement on me. I picture their hysteria down the road when reasoned and rational thinking is restored to the discussions of Bush.

Show me any poll where historians/social scientists list Reagan as one of our best presidents. It's not People's Choice awards that count here.

 

[marlasmom]

I guess that means you have absolutely nothing, noteworthy to say.

You are right on Dawn.

 

[pooh4evr]

How many months of Obama's senate career has he actually BEEN there voting rather then runnung for President, and true or false didn't he vote more often than not as "present" in then state senate rather than taking any particular side? That maybe wrong but something I had read somewhere..

and as I recall Illinois doesn't basically border Russia- I am sure Palin has had to deal with them a bit (maybe just small fishing, waters disputes or something) but I am sure it is more than Barack has had to do

 

[Chuck S]

and as I recall Illinois doesn't basically border Russia- I am sure Palin has had to deal with them a bit (maybe just small fishing, waters disputes or something) but I am sure it is more than Barack has had to do

Surely you don't want governors handling US territorial disputes! I'm pretty sure that is handled by the US Department of State Not the Alaskan Governor.

 

[legalsea]

I remember when I voted for Abe Lincoln. I was worried some about his lack of executive experience. However, he turned out well. One term (two years) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and one (maybe two) terms as a Illinois state representative (back then they met once every two years, I believe). Many people were sure of his basic honesty, however, and that helped make up for lack of executive experience.

If I do not vote for Senator Obama it will not be due to his lack of executive experience. I also have no problem with Governor Palin's lack of experience, should she be thrust into the hot seat. Both seem level-headed, and presidents do not operate in a vaccum.

Sometimes experience is just another word for managing to avoid indictment.

 

[happygirl]

Palin, hands down

 

[rayelias]

So much for Diplomacy being a qualification for President, huh? No wonder we have senseless war to deal with.

You know, I'm sick of people getting away with calling this a "senseless" war.

In your perfect world, what would you have done when you have a ruthless dictator, who invaded an innocent neighbor, violated FOURTEEN (not 1, not 2, but 14) provisions of the cease fire. He refused, after months and months and months, to let UN inspectors in. He kept shooting at our pilots who were protecting the no-fly zone, after continued warnings over months and months to stop.

Tell me, what would you have done in your perfect world. Keep letting him do it?

If you had some kids in the neighborhood who kept throwing rocks at your car? Would you continue to let it happen? What if you asked them to stop, but they didn't? Would you TELL them to stop? What if they didn't? Would you call the police? What if the police asked them to stop and the didn't? Wouldn't you expect these hooligans to get thrown in jail after months and months of throwing rocks at your car?

Saddam Hussein's Iraq were SHOOTING - TRYING TO KILL - our pilots for simply trying to enforce the no-fly zone. Saddam Hussein refused allow UN inspectors in, after time and time and time.

Not to even mention the hundreds of thousands of his own people he killed and his sons raped and pillaged.

We (the US and the UN) gave him ample opportunities to fall in line. We did not want to go to war. If we did, we would have from the get go. Perhaps you conveniently forget the months and months and months of negotiations, pleading with Hussein to comply, that led up to the war. WE did not start this war, Saddam Hussein did. WE simply finished it.

Sometimes it is a difficult decision, but someone needs to step in.

We, and our NUMEROUS allies did. And, we went in there and instead of carpetbombing the entire country, killing millions of innocent citizens - we went in there and as carefully as possible, surgically removed those in power. When you fight a war that way, it takes longer than blowing the whole place up. Our troops did an outstanding job - and they did the right thing.

You pitiful attempts to redefine an unfortunate situation for political purposes is sad and unbecoming.

 

[pr surfer]

You pitiful attempts to redefine an unfortunate situation for political purposes is sad and unbecoming.

We are wasting money that we don't have and are likely going to get nothing other than debt and an worthless dollar in return for our efforts.

If you can't see that, then you are blind.

 

[Chuck S]

You know, I'm sick of people getting away with calling this a "senseless" war.

In your perfect world, what would you have done when you have a ruthless dictator, who invaded an innocent neighbor, violated FOURTEEN (not 1, not 2, but 14) provisions of the cease fire. He refused, after months and months and months, to let UN inspectors in. He kept shooting at our pilots who were protecting the no-fly zone, after continued warnings over months and months to stop.

Tell me, what would you have done in your perfect world. Keep letting him do it?

If you had some kids in the neighborhood who kept throwing rocks at your car? Would you continue to let it happen? What if you asked them to stop, but they didn't? Would you TELL them to stop? What if they didn't? Would you call the police? What if the police asked them to stop and the didn't? Wouldn't you expect these hooligans to get thrown in jail after months and months of throwing rocks at your car?

Saddam Hussein's Iraq were SHOOTING - TRYING TO KILL - our pilots for simply trying to enforce the no-fly zone. Saddam Hussein refused allow UN inspectors in, after time and time and time.

Not to even mention the hundreds of thousands of his own people he killed and his sons raped and pillaged.

We (the US and the UN) gave him ample opportunities to fall in line. We did not want to go to war. If we did, we would have from the get go. Perhaps you conveniently forget the months and months and months of negotiations, pleading with Hussein to comply, that led up to the war. WE did not start this war, Saddam Hussein did. WE simply finished it.

Sometimes it is a difficult decision, but someone needs to step in.

We, and our NUMEROUS allies did. And, we went in there and instead of carpetbombing the entire country, killing millions of innocent citizens - we went in there and as carefully as possible, surgically removed those in power. When you fight a war that way, it takes longer than blowing the whole place up. Our troops did an outstanding job - and they did the right thing.

You pitiful attempts to redefine an unfortunate situation for political purposes is sad and unbecoming.

It's OK that the POTUS lied to get us involved?

It's OK to have been told by his administration that we would be welcomed with dancing and palm branches?

It's OK to have been told it would be a cake walk?

He was no security threat to the US, he was a terrible dictator, but here are many in the world, aren't there? Have we gone after the others and made war with them? Or was Saddam the lucky one because his country was oil rich? Why aren't we "liberating" the people of non-oil producing countries? Many of them were far worse to their people, and murdered more of their own, than Saddam?

There were no Iraqi attackers on 9-11, they were Saudi nationals, a country deemed "friends" of the US.

We have spent BILLIONS rebuilding Iraq, while the infrastructure of our major cities is crumbling...look at the bridge collapses, the damage to New Orleans because this, and previous administrations, wouldn't reinforce the levy system. I think it's fine for America to try and help other countries when we can, with $ and civil engineering projects, IF we can afford it...but we need to start taking care of our own problems, too.

We can't afford to be the world's policemen.

Isn't it a senseless war, if it was started based on lies? Remember WMDs? Remember when Powell went before the UN with pictures of a "poison factory on wheels?" All of them lies.

 

[TLSnell1981]

You are hilarious

Blatant holes in US security, with no non-circumstancial evidence that the measures are working
Higher rate of home foreclosures (possibly the highest, but I'm not 100% certain)
Greatest federal debt in the history of our country
Lowest world-wide standing in recent history
Lowest presidential approval rating

Sorry...this is a direct result of Clinton's plan in 1994 to make it easier people to qualify for home loans. People have been allowed to finance homes they can't afford.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Maybe in a dictatorship But in a democracy, when a majority public disagrees with the president, he needs to change what he's doing or get out. Hence why we have a lame duck president.

Sorry. The United States of America is a REPUBLIC not a democracy.

 

[pr surfer]

Sorry. The United States of America is a REPUBLIC not a democracy.

I hate repeating myself

The US is a constitutional republic that relies on representative democracy

We're both right.

or we're both wrong

 

[Chuck S]

Sorry...this is a direct result of Clinton's plan in 1994 to make it easier people to qualify for home loans. People have been allowed to finance homes they can't afford.

Wow, a plan in 1994? Of course, the current administration, if this plan was a problem, didn't do anything to correct it since 2001. It is doubtful that many of the people now facing major problems in the housing market bought their homes prior to 2001, isn't it?

 

[pr surfer]

Sorry...this is a direct result of Clinton's plan in 1994 to make it easier people to qualify for home loans. People have been allowed to finance homes they can't afford.

I just spent close to 30 minutes looking for something to verify what you've posted, and I can't find a thing. What I've found are references to the Reagan administration and Salomon Brothers, but nothing I can really make sense of.

Care to show me the source of your statement?

 

[loco4dis]

Show me any poll where historians/social scientists list Reagan as one of our best presidents. It's not People's Choice awards that count here.

Okey-Dokey. A 2000 Federalist Society/Wall Street Journal survey of history, politics and law scholars, unique because it "was intentionally balanced between the ideological left and right," found Reagan to be ranked 8th overall, described him as "near great," and as the best president in the previous 50 years, since Harry Truman.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

And this 1999 C-Span Survey of Presidential Leadership, which admittedly surveyed a more leftward tilted group of academics, ranked President Reagan 11th overall. Bill Clinton was ranked 21st, just ahead of Jimmy Carter at 22nd and Richard Nixon at 25th.

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/

Prefer regular folks to academics? OK. There's this USA Today-Gallup poll, which asks "Who do you regard as the greatest U.S. President." And there's Ronald Reagan, ranked No. 2 just below Lincoln in every survey I could find since 1999. And a full 64% say he will be regarded by history as "above average" or "outstanding.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

The same will happen with Bush. Reagan confronted the Evil Empire, and Bush confronted the evil jihadists. That makes them consequential presidents, and consequential presidents are usually remembered well by history. They are the men who didn't seek greatness, but upon whom greatness was thrust. But, hey, history will remember Bill Clinton, too, for lots of, ummm, stuff.

 

[Chuck S]

Okey-Dokey. A 2000 Federalist Society/Wall Street Journal survey of history, politics and law scholars, unique because it "was intentionally balanced between the ideological left and right," found Reagan to be ranked 8th overall, described him as "near great," and as the best president in the previous 50 years, since Harry Truman.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

And this 1999 C-Span Survey of Presidential Leadership, which admittedly surveyed a more leftward tilted group of academics, ranked President Reagan 11th overall. Bill Clinton was ranked 21st, just ahead of Jimmy Carter at 22nd and Richard Nixon at 25th.

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/

Prefer regular folks to academics? OK. There's this USA Today-Gallup poll, which asks "Who do you regard as the greatest U.S. President." And there's Ronald Reagan, ranked No. 2 just below Lincoln in every survey I could find since 1999. And a full 64% say he will be regarded by history as "above average" or "outstanding.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

The same will happen with Bush. Reagan confronted the Evil Empire, and Bush confronted the evil jihadists. That makes them consequential presidents, and consequential presidents are usually remembered well by history. They are the men who didn't seek greatness, but upon whom greatness was thrust. But, hey, history will remember Bill Clinton, too, for lots of, ummm, stuff.

OK, I'm laughing at the this part, since you are using it to refer to Bush: They are the men who didn't seek greatness, but upon whom greatness was thrust.

 

[mickeysgal]

I'm not interested in the more experienced candidate this election. Look what the past 7 years of experienced leadership has given us.

If you were going for an operation, I would be willing to bet you would choose a doctor that was experienced, right? Not one that heard about how to operate, been counciled about how to operate, or talked about how to operate. You'd want one that had actual operating experience. So why in the world would anyone choose a president that wasn't experienced?

 

[pr surfer]

If you were going for an operation, I would be willing to bet you would choose a doctor that was experienced, right? Not one that heard about how to operate, been counciled about how to operate, or talked about how to operate. You'd want one that had actual operating experience. So why in the world would anyone choose a president that wasn't experienced?

that's not even apples and oranges.

That's apples and a buick.

If I am going for an operation, I go to the doctor with the best record, and I bring along a doctor friend to ask the questions that I would not think of asking.

However, when I vote for president, I vote for the candidate that reflects what I believe in best.

 

[mickeysgal]

that's not even apples and oranges.

That's apples and a buick.

If I am going for an operation, I go to the doctor with the best record, and I bring along a doctor friend to ask the questions that I would not think of asking.

However, when I vote for president, I vote for the candidate that reflects what I believe in best.

It is a very valid comparision.

So you'd go to a doctor with the best record (aka experience), but you wouldn't apply that same criteria to making a decision on who has the best record (aka experience) in running a country??