One in particular, the current one. Although anyone who suggests Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or Liz warren for President should learn from this.
Many have tried to allow the President to dodge accountability, on the facile logic that he didn’t code the site. However, he does decide the broad approach to making his initiatives work, and here is a classic case of not having the foggiest notion of how to run an organization.
It’s just a top-down initiative. It’s sure to encounter problems on the downstream because new strategies will invariably shake up the existing structure. IRR’s still have to be worked out. It doesn’t look too serious, unless it’s really impossible to implement.
I’m sure it was bound to encounter problems. Which doesn’t mean that just anyone should have been delegated the job. It’s like saying people are going to die in war anyway so it doesn’t matter who your generals are.
Missing the point. Governors, generals, VPs, even some cabinet members, have experience in managing large organizations. If they did that well, chance are that they can do well in the Presidency.
A person who was a career legislator and never ran anything in his life, will tend to have predictable results. Obama understands politics. And as the article shows, politics was foremost in his mind during this process, and it got in the way of actually making the program work.
He didn’t mean inexperienced as a president but rather inexp. in terms of administration and policy formulation. When was the last time an ex-Governor became prez? The Gov, as I understand it, is the real training for future chiefs.
Exactly. Besides, if one wants to argue that experience doesn’t matter, then the only alternative explanation of the President’s actions is stupidity. He was warned by his economic team that he needed people who actually understood how to manage such large projects, and he instead chose his political team.
From everything we know about Barack Obama, he’s not stupid. So his lack of management and leadership experience explains the problems within his administration, which go way beyond health care.
The most disturbing problem being that he’s left in the dark about things he really needs to know. yet hasn’t appeared to make any effort to change that culture within his administration, a culture that “protects” the President by shielding him from the accountability of knowing what’s going on.
I put it in the Pit so that people could snark freely.
However, I’d caution the snarkers, for those who make fun of my “skewed polls” misfire, I also spent a lot of time pointing out the President’s basic inability to do his job due to incompetence and being obsessed with political considerations to an extent we haven’t seen, well, ever. It wasn’t the kind of thing that could be proven with a cite, because you had to notice all the little things he did wrong that violated basic management principles, and have a basic understanding of those principles oneself.
Now the MSM is doing in depth analyses of what went wrong, and we’re seeing exactly how a President clueless about administration screws up his most important intiative.
…managing large organizations does not equal the presidency. There are plenty of Governors, generals, VP’s, even cabinet members who have experience in managing large organizations but would be disasters as a President. Fortunately they rarely get elected because most Americans aren’t stupid enough to think that “managing a large organization” is the primary criteria for electing a President.
Describing Obama as a “career legislator and never ran anything in his life” is as accurate as stating “adaher is a 40 year old man who lives in his mums basement and has no real life experience and isn’t in the position to determine the credentials of the President of the United States.”
You guys elected him twice. Surely you should be pitting both yourself and your fellow Americans?
I said if they did it WELL. Of course, there are other considerations, but relevant experience is necessary.
Describing Obama as I described him is 100% accurate. These are facts we all agree on. What we disagreed on in the 2008 election was whether it mattered. Obviously, we now know it did matter. The way you describe me is supposition based on what you know of me from an anoymous discussion board. If I had been in the public eye and my biography known, you’d be much better able to assess my qualifications for office.
Your last point seems to be a “who are we to question our betters?”-type argument. I have no answer for that. And don’t think I particularly need one.
This pitting is intended for anyone who thinks experience is irrelevant, and yes, there are many conservatives eager to elevate some neophyte Republicans just because they have the “correct” views and because they “fight”, which apparently is more important than governing successfully.
And I’d note that when Americans elected Barack Obama, his experience or lack thereof was simply not a factor considered. Rather, “He speaks so well!” and “He’s so smart!” were the primary compliments given. Which is about as useful for the Presidency as Sarah Palin’s good looks.