A lot of press about how being Governor is relevant experience for the US Presidency. Governorship along with lawyer turned career politician or military seem to be the standard career paths. We’ve got Johnson, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush as recent examples.
Part of Sarah Palin’s pitch is that she is governor of Alaska. Certainly, I think we can all agree that’s something to put on the resume. It shows that she was able to be elected for public office from a population base of 680,000 residents. Maybe related questions to debate are is 20 months in office long enough for a meaningful scorecard, has she personally done anything significant, is it fair to say that a real benchmark comes from someone that serves 2 terms (received a re-election mandate), is a population of 680,000 significant, etc.
Alaska is ranked as the #49 state by GDP(if you include the District of Columbia)
Someone else can post the Alaskan racial demographics versus the US as a whole if that’s relevant (not cherry picking, a quick search didn’t reveal this info). Here is Wasilla:
The racial makeup of the city is 85.46% White, 0.59% Black or African American, 5.25% Native American, 1.32% Asian, 0.13% Pacific Islander, 1.32% from other races, and 5.94% from two or more races. 3.68% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race.
Let’s rank the States of the recent governors turned Presidents by GDP:
**California **GDP = $2 trillion, and makes it equivalent to France or the eighth largest economy in the world if it were a separate country.
**Texas **GDP = $1 trillion, or equivalent to Canada if it were a country
**Georgia ** GDP= $387 billion, or equivalent to Switzerland
**Arkansas **GDP = $141 billion, or equivalent to Pakistan
**Alaska **GDP = $29 billion, or equivalent to Belarus, which is ranked about #67if it were an independent country. (A related question would be what percentage of the Alaskan economy is dependant on Federal funding and is that high or low compared with other States).
Ideally this debate can be objective and limited to the question of Alaskan governorship relevance to the Presidency and not comparing the experience of different candidates.
I do not believe that being governor of about 0.2% of the population and 0.2% of the economy of the United States is of significant relevance to becoming President. No arguement that it’s a plus on the balance sheet, but I believe it is a miniscule plus.
Well, afaik the Governor of Alaska isn’t running for President…
Why the number of people in governed is a factor is beyond me, but what the hell.
So what? It’s not like the governor is out there directing millions. The staff to run a large group of people is similar to the staff required to run a smaller group. You are STILL in charge of said staff if you are directing millions or thousands.
Again, so what? The experience is essentially the same regardless of how big the GDP of a state is. Screwups can govern large states, and non-screwups small ones…and vice versa. What diff? Shouldn’t people be judged on how well they do, not how many folks they governed…or how large the GDP was?
shrug I expect it comes down, as all things, to partisanship. If you feel that McCain should be president I expect you feel that being a governor is sufficient experience. If you lean towards Obama you probably don’t.
Myself, I think the fact that Palin’s (since that’s what this is all about) experience is limited in her office, and THAT, if anything, is the only real factor…not how many people are in Alaska or how big it’s GDP is.
She’s running for a position that requires that she take over as President if McCain is taken out of the picture. That should mean she has to be good enough to be President on her own merits, even if there are others who would be even better.
Ah…and this became a factor when exactly? Should I list all the VP’s who were unsuited to becoming president? Hell, according to the Founding Fathers if Obama wins McCain should be his VP.
The thing is, I’m unconvinced she isn’t as qualified as most other VP choices through out the history of this country. Honestly, I’d rather have Palin than someone like Quayle (or Chaney)…or Biden. I don’t LIKE Biden, and definitely don’t want him as my President. However, HE’S not running for President…Obama is. Well, same/same.
Any chance to actually discuss whether the Alaskan Governorship is actually relevant?
**xtimse **- managing a staff of 20 that manages a country is *a lot *different than managing a staff of 20 that manage a State. Managing a staff of 20 that runs California is different than a staff that manages Alaska. Take it in a business context, being the CEO of Intel is significantly different than being the Intel sales manager responsible for Alaska.
Really? So the late-shift manager at McDonald’s is just as impressive as the CEO of Microsoft? Man! I wonder why the former doesn’t make as much money as the latter? He’s being ripped off!
The Democrats must really hate Palin to think executive power should be quantified, with real numbers, just like any other credential on a job candidate’s resume.
But running a company of 100 is very much like running a major corporation…it’s all executive experience. It’s only degrees of difference…unlike your own analogy between a CEO and a sales manager.
I suppose a good analogy would be between a company commander and a battalion commander…vs a REMF or Fobbit. There is more similarity between the company commander and the battalion commander (who both have executive or command experience) and the REMF/Fobbit.
I don’t see how being governor of Alaska is not executive experience at all…and I don’t see how being in the Senate (for a few years or even decades) GIVES one executive experience. Neither, IMHO, is ‘relevant experience’ to be President…being PRESIDENT is the only real ‘relevant experience’ that prepares one to be President.
I’m sorry, but I think this is a silly argument. I think a relevant argument against Palin is that she has only been governor for a short time…not how small and puny the state she governs supposedly is. YMMV of course.
You should have stayed quite as your argument is ridiculous. Apples to oranges and also full of straw as it wasn’t what I said. I do think it’s funny that you are comparing the size of their salaries as a meter stick…gods, this election has really been a series of gut busters…
Why is my argument ridiculous? You’re the one who admitted you don’t know why the size of the populace is relevant when evaluating a governor’s executive strength. Even a five-year-old knows why that would be a factor.
Maybe it’s you who should be quiet for awhile.
No one is saying that being a governor of Alaska doesn’t qualify as executive experience. You are arguing a strawman if you think that’s what the critics are doing.
It’s ridiculous because your analogy is an apples to oranges comparison (as you would have seen at least to answer your question had you read all my post). The manager of a McDonalds isn’t the same as the owner of a company…they aren’t comparable positions. If you want to try and make the comparison between someone who owns a company of 100 to the CEO of Microsoft, well THAT would be a more accurate comparison.
Well, I would be, but people keep saying such stupid things that it amuses me to come in and burst their bubbles. I know…wasted effort, especially since I seem to be the only one seeing the humor in all this. Still, since I’m just sitting here in a hotel room it DOES amuse me and keeps me occupied…
Um…yes they are. That’s exactly what the OP is asking, just in a round about sort of way. There are plenty of people who are saying that being governor of a puny state like Alaska doesn’t REALLY qualify as executive experience. As if the number of the governed or the GDP of a state impacts on how MUCH experience someone derives.
Instead of focusing on how LONG she has been a governor we have threads like this one focusing on how small Alaska is.
Oh well…it IS amusing still, though I guess it’s starting to get a bit old…
The main reason for answering “No” is that Alaska basically lives on free money from 1)its oil/gas business and 2)federal subsidies, and therefore is spared the usual fiscal-discipline grind (that’s how they can run a state with no personal income or sales tax and send out checks to everybody – all the joy of bread and circuses politics with none of the long-term pain).
And again, if you don’t understand why the number of the governed or the GDP (which is correlated with the size of state’s budget) bear any relevance to the strength of the governor, then you really have no business engaging in an intelligent debate. Since you didn’t like my McDonald’s example, I’ll give you more concrete examples. Two for the price of one:
Do you think the prime minister of Belarus works harder than the president of the US?
Do you think the mayor of Augusta, GA works just as hard as the mayor of NYC?
Now it would be disrespectful to tell the mayor of August,GA or the PM of Belarus that they suck just because they govern a small populace. But their experience doesn’t necessarily make them qualified to run larger populations (they could be idiots, they could be corrupt, their skills could be more suited to smaller organizations, etc). Especially since any fool can be elected if they know enough people. Small town elections are basically popularity contests since everyone knows the candidates from hockey practice and PTA meetings. Palin’s running for mayor? Goodness! I know her from Brownies! Sure, I’ll vote for her. She’s good people!
I think I’ve just stated the obvious, but I expect you to feign confusion anyway.
