Fair’s fair; the office of the President already has a legal minimum age. So why not a maximum ? It’s just as “ageist” to act as if a senile 70+ year old is wiser than a health 20 year old.
What we were talking about had changed slightly to “leadership and courage”. Lightnin’ denied that "those elements’ - leadership and courage - were relevant to the Presidency.
You were talking about executive experience, which is measurable. Lightnin’ was talking about things that were not. Indeed, you could make an argument that the Presidents at the bottom of the rankings were there because they lacked leadership or courage. But it is not measurable the way experience is.
Plus, this is an election campaign. We are comparing candidates to each other, not Presidents to each other. Presidential candidates usually have roughly similar kinds of backgrounds. Until recently, it was rather rare to have a person run for President who had never been in the military - because military service was much more common, distinguished service in the military is one path to prominence that can lead to the White House, and because it was generally agreed that a President needed military experience.[sup]1[/sup] It is also rather unusual that a Presidential candidate has no “executive experience” as we have defined it. Not unheard of, but unusual.
So your list of Presidents is - sort of - comparing apples and oranges. There just haven’t been that many Presidents of recent years who have the kind of background that Obama has.
Regards,
Shodan
[sup]1[/sup]Recent nominees - [ul][]Hilary and Obama - no military experience []Kerry - Viet Nam []Bush - National Guard []Gore - Viet Nam []Clinton - no military experience[]Dole - WWII []Bush Sr. - Navy WWII []Reagan - WWII []Mondale - I believe he was a corporal in the Army []Carter - Navy []Ford - Navy, I think []Nixon - also Navy, I think []McGovern - he was a fighter pilot, wasn’t he?[]Humphrey - no military experience [/ul]That’s as far back as I have time for.
Experience is tied in with age–if you live long enough, you can cite that as your qualifications for the Presidency. I think, in fact, that that’s more or less the scam that Hillary was trying to pull–she actually claimed that she had “four decades of experience,” which by my count would mean that she was counting her entire adult life, from about her junior year of college on, as a qualification for the Presidency. Poor Obama (assuming he could do it with a straight face) could only claim, at best, less than three decades of experience (if four decades=40 years–I can’t always follow how Hillary does her math). So–Hillary WINS!!!
Obama’s argument, as I see it, basically states that once you’ve fulfilled the actual requirements for the Presidency (citizen, 35+ years of age, whatever else there is, probably not much), that’s it. Game over. Everyone who meets those bare qualifications is perfectly qualified. Being a US senator for five decades doesn’t qualify you as President, especially if you’ve spent most of those five decades passing corrupt bills at the behest of lobbyists–far from it. That DISqualifies you, if it does anything. Voting to approve a war that most Americans agree is misguided at best and criminal at worst IS experience, but it’s a negative experience. You’re better off to have done nothing than you are to have supported Bush’s war.
Could Obama have withstood torture for five years? Maybe not, but could McCain have taught constititional law for even a semester? Maybe not (he seems to lack the intellectual depth required to understand some of the complicated thinking there, IMO). But if Obama were a used-car salesman or a kindergarten teacher, he could still be a great candidate if he presented policies that in themselves seemed like what the country needs.
The bar for eligilibility for the Presidency is set amazingly low, and it allows for any peanut farmer, or SAHM (which is basically what Hillary is, the most high profile SAHM in the country’s history) or rural lawyer to run for the office. If some bozo runs, and is quickly exposed AS a bozo (because he can’t explain his proposed policies to voters’ satisfaction) well, that is a disqualification, but who he was and what he did in the past, or how long he did it for, is at best useful as a way to assess his character. In no way is it a qualification or a disqualification for office.
“Look, if you want to vote for John McCain because he’s much older than I am,” Obama should argue, “then go ahead–I can’t pretend I’ve had the same amount of life experience as he has, because I plainly haven’t. But if that were such a crucial issue, then we really wouldn’t bother having an election, would we? We’d just nominate the oldest candidate who’s still going to have a pulse on Election Day, and let him or her assume the presidency. This isn’t about who’s been around the block the most times, or who’s done what four or five decades ago–it’s about who has the soundest proposals for America’s future, and who has demonstrated some ability to accomplish his or her goals. I’ve done that, as has John McCain, so it’s just a matter of whose ideas do you think are best.”
That’s a good argument, and one plainly not insulting to McCain, unlike some advanced in this thread. It’s a good thing some folks here don’t have any formal role with Obama’s campaign, as explicitly calling McCain senile would likely provoke a backlash that would dwarf the whole Wright controversy.
You didn’t. If I made a false assumption based on your sarcastic comment I’m glad to be corrected. Perhaps you could clear things up by making some definative statement about the relative importance of charecter and intelligence vs. experience.IYO. So far it isn’t clear.
Is experience for POUS objective and measurable? You have failed to show this is true. That seems to be crucial to the discussion. The evidence we have seems seems to indicate there is no direct coorelation between experience and what makes a good and effective POUS. Is this true or not? If it is how do we then look at the two candidates and compare their experience to determine who is better prepared on a basis of experience?
Aside from there being no evidence that executive experience makes one a better POUS there’s another detail to consider
Based on what I’ve seen in this thread I fail to see that McCain has anymore excutive experience than Obama.
It’s been demonstrated that this is not necessarily a plus. Unless you can clearly show that it is then it’s largely irrelevant.
I must have missed this. What executive experience are we talking about?
I think he’s been demonstrating his leadership capabilities for quite some time even without an executive label.
Although I honor McCain’s military service and his years as a public servant I don’t think it’s honest in a analytical sense to equate his military record with his ability to be a superior POUS. It was decades ago. What I’d want to see is a clear line of actions that demonstrated that those experiences were used as building blocks for charecter and integrity and then I could link those to a man who can be a good POUS. Sadly, I see a man whose time in Washington seems to have eroded his integrity and charecter. I see a man who has flipped his once courageous and honest positions of opposition to support the policies of a horrible administration, all the while he tries to distance himself from that admin and borrows slogans from his opponent.
Don’t care she’s not the nominee.
Until it can be demonstrated that experience X equates to being a better president then I think critical thinking about the evidence presented makes it a pretty good idea to acknowlege that the experience we’re comparing here is not a real measure of who will be the better POUS. If it’s going to be considered it should be several wrungs down on the priority list.
I think it’s humorous that Shodan tried to credit Reagan with service in WWII. It’s true he was in the Army, but he never left California. He spent the war in the 1st Motion Picture Unit making training films.
That’s true, but to be fair, he was turned down for combat duty because of his awful eyesight. So he did what the Army ordered him to do.
So therefore, according to Shodan, being told what to do by the Army counts as “executive experience” and is what made Reagan such a great President.
It kind of speaks volumes about what kind of President **Shodan **wants, doesn’t it?
When do plan to demonstrate that they are relevant? As far as I can tell, and as I have shown, some of our worst presidents have had leadership and courage — five military officers, five governors. Unless you’re somehow saying it’s possible to rise to a generalship lacking both — an argument which seems to cut against McCain.
Your argument has been, if I follow the chain of logic, that McCain’s military service can be measured; because it can be measured it counts in his favor. He has also demonstrated leadership and courage, because he was in the military; therefore, that also counts in his favor.
It seems to me there is a logic gap here. Why is executive experience counted in his favor? Executive experience, defined as governorship or officer rank, seems to be completely irrelevant. Do you agree?
Also, you seem to be counting “leadership and courage” only in this election. Other presidents in recent memory have had both — George H.W. Bush, for instance, often told the story of his days as a pilot — who have not made very good presidents.
General Ulysses S. Grant lacked courage? Jeez.
Okay, so if you’re going to say that “leadership and courage” are what matter, not military service, then in order to honestly assess the candidates, you cannot count McCain’s military experience being more relevant to leadership skills than Obama’s civilian experience.
I’m always a bit puzzled by the opinion that military experience somehow makes a better President. For starters, presidents rarely have any “military” input into a war. They sell it to the people, they declare it, they talk about it. But they don’t call the plays on the battlefield. They rely on generals. They rely on advisors. I fail to see how military experience automatically makes someone more qualified for the presidency than someone who has never served.
The only thing I can figure is a president who had been a soldier may be more concerned about our troops when sending them into harm’s way. Not that he won’t but that he would not do so lightly. Additionally a former soldier would (presumably) be more concerned that the military is properly supported and has capable leaders as well as more concern for veterans.
Also as a former soldier the president would be more focused on American safety (he and his buddies have bled for America and will be damn sure to see it kept safe…call it a point for patriotism).
Whether it works that way in practice someone would have to research but I think those are the presumptions. A president who had never been a soldier may well still hold to all that as well but it is open to doubt where the former soldier’s commitment is not.
I wouldn’t presume to speak for Shodan in this thread. We agree often, but on this one our opinions are surely not in sync.
Reagan had significant executive experience, but he didn’t get much from the Army. If you ask me, he gained a bit of this as a lifeguard in his youth (an underexplored aspect of his biography, but an important part of his character development IMHO) and gained quite a bit more as a union activist and as head of the Screen Actors Guild.
And this is his pre-governor experience, of course.
It is a reasonable position to take, Mr. Moto. Leadership and courage may not be the end-all qualification for becoming a good president, but if we seek these qualities in a candidate, we must examine the candidate’s entire past.
The reasoning Shodan uses seems to consist of a priori logic: X makes a good president; a military background gives X; McCain was in the military; McCain has X; all bad presidents with a military background can be ignored; therefore we can conclude that X makes a good president.
Right. I’ve said as much many times about candidates of all kinds. And I’ve especially said it about military service, which voters seem to respect but won’t vote for as a sole qualification - history has shown that pretty clearly as well.
I’m confused by your definition of executive experience. Could you just give me your definition, so I don’t have to keep coming back to this? Because my definition of executive experience in relation to presidential politics doesn’t include XO’s, and most assuredly doesn’t include life guards. Maybe I am not tipping my executive waitresses enough.
It is, after you’ve demonstrated exactly what kind of experience makes for a better POUS. Have you? Can you?
So th POTUS isn’t a community organizer with a national community? Problem solving within a community and bringing together resources and diverse organizations to improve a community seems to relate to me.
National politician? Perhaps not so much. Executive? You haven’t shown JM has the edge there or that it is all that relevant. CIC? JMs military service is extremely impressive. I have a hard time relating that record to how he might preform as POTUS and I’ve already explained why. You haven’t given any reason to think the two relate any more or even as much as more recent service as a community organizer.
“Nearly incredible level of demonstrated courage and leadership” Comon now, your bias is showing.
It’s interesting that the evidence offered in the thread seems to indicate that military courage and decision making doesn’t clearly translate into political courage and decision making. Let’s look at recent political courage and decision making and see who has the edge.
At a time when most politicians were supporting or at least being uncourageous and quiet about the pending Iraq invasion, a junior senator from Illinois had the guts to risk his career for what he believed in? In comparison, the once courageous and rebellious McCain, has flipped his opinions and stances on several issues quite recently.
I’ll give JM courage points for continuing to support the war when it’s obvious that the majority of Americans are against it. Recently he’s been changing his tune about that as well, trying to convince us that we can remain present in Iraq like we remain present in Korea, without casualties. That seems like the same kind of rhetoric as we’ve heard before. “They will greet us as liberators” “The insurgency is in it’s last throes” All BS.
You’re right. That makes his change of position on torture even more alarming to me. It convinces me even more that he has sold his ethics for political gain.
One candidate is a best-selling author, who drew the inspiration for his book from the rantings of the above mentioned bigot. So is the other candidate, except that his book was inspired by his father, a CINCPAC in war time.
[/QUOTE]
These comments belong in a different debate
Comon man. I don’t think you’re saying McCain deserves to be president because he was POW. How i the hell is this relevant?
I suppose it depends on whether you’re looking at recent history, as in, closer and more relevant to the actual election, and more distant and unrelated history.
Reagan essentially ran a swimming beach set up on a river. While local officials had ultimate control of the beach, they left the running of it to the single lifeguard on duty - everything from guarding the swimmers, mediating petty disputes, kicking out drunks, and selling refreshments. All to a teenaged kid.
Of all the teenaged kids they hired over the years to do the job, apparantly Reagan was the best at it. He held the job for years, only leaving to go to college.
Again, not the be-all and end-all of experience. But it is part of a lifetime of experience, same as Obama’s community organizing is part of his.
Did either one have a paper route? I hear there’s a lot of paper work involved in being president.
Holy shit. Are you really equating being a lifeguard as a teenager to community organizing as an adult? Did you even click the link I provided in post #104, let alone read any of it, to understand just how complex community organizing actually is?
Wow. Just, wow. This is getting really pathetic.