Obama Qualifications?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

TB, the fact that Obama has little substance in his speeches is not relevant to a discussion on his experience. Lincoln had more substance, that is obvious, but his experience was still relatively similar to Obama’s level.[/quote]

It is relevant in the context that Irish insinuated - that there is a viable substitute to experience that can ultimately produce a Lincoln. My point was to suggest we have no reason to think Obama has that substitute, so we must turn back to his experience level as an important factor, which it certainly is.

42

Let’s unpack “experience” under the US Constitution.

The Constitution provides that only a person at or over the age of 35 can be elected and serve. The reason, obviously, was to make sure the President was of sufficient maturity, experience, and character.

Now, the earliest figure I can dig up for life expectancy is the year 1820, some 40 years after the Framers decided on the 35 figure. In 1820, the life expectancy was 39.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us

(I welcome any more enlightening statistics)

As such, here we have the Framers wanting someone who, by measure of 1820, had lived 89.7% of their lives prior to being eligible to serve as President.

Naturally, the Framers’ age, if scaled to modern mortality rates, would be different we were writing the Constitution today - the average age of mortality has nearly doubled since 1820, so if you want a rough rule, double the minimum age to serve.

All this is an abstract exercise, but it reinforces one important point - experience matters. It’s not the only thing, and there are other kinds of experience outside of serving as a public official, but this notion that experience is a non-issue is contradicted by the very Constitution that restricts who can and cannot serve in the role.

Experience matters - and if you don’t think it does, you should bring that up and defend the point in your next interview.

EDIT: typo.

43

has anybody said anything blatantly racist yet? since i dont want to be the first

44

[quote]eremesu wrote:
has anybody said anything blatantly racist yet? since i dont want to be the first[/quote]

This is the “Politics and World Issues” Forum…

Every “-ism” that COULD be expressed has been expressed here.

Mufasa

45

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And McCain has done…?

Long term Senator. Instrumental in many significant laws being passed as well as influencing policy.

And Bush did…?

Governor of TX

And Clinton did…?

Governor of AR

We’ve had plenty of politicians win the Presidency without really proving anything. It sucks, but a lack of experience OR a big chunk of crappy experience can be easily ignored by the American people.

I cannot think of any serious candidate for the office that has as little experience as Obama.

For the record he’d also be the most liberal to ever hold that office should he win.[/quote]

Good if it were true.

49

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
So…age, experience, record and political leanings mean nothing?[/quote]

They have more bearing on getting elected than on how someone will respond to the pressures and tough decisions of the Presidency.

  1. Age:

The law defines the lower limit; beyond that, it tells you little about how effective one will be as President.

  1. Experience:

Neither Obama nor McCain have experience at being President. Experience may…and I emphasize MAY give one a little more “pull” in Congress. However, more often than not, having “pull” in Congress means you most likely have given something up or promised something in return. While that in and of itself is not bad; it can lead to bad compromises.

  1. Record:

Because of the “all-or-none” nature of the way Bills are passed, I quite frankly stopped using Voting Record as a valid criteria for judging a candidate long ago. A person in the Congress and Senate will often have to “swallow” things that are placed in a Bill that they are against in order to get the things they are in favor of.

  1. Political Leanings:

Maybe…

It really depends on those things that are the most important to you. For example, if maintaining abortion rights is your “Presidential Filter”, then a very conservative candidate most likely should not be voted for, especially because of the power the President has to nominate both Supreme Court and Federal Judges.

Mufasa

50

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:

Partisanship always has been a part of Politics. However, there are select times (albeit rarely), where Politicians DID do what was “right” and in the best interest of the Country, instead of what would just get them elected or re-elected.

This is a time in our History when it needs to happen.

Mufasa

That doesn’t work either. Who the hell decides what’s “Right”? I sure don’t want guys like shitdick Headhunter over there deciding what’s “Right”. Even guys like Thunder who I respect- I’d never vote for him. So who’s “right”?

Everyone in Congress sure did a great job being nonpartisan after 9/11… when they signed the fucing “PATRIOT” act without readin it.

Or when they all approved and voted to go to war in Iraq…

No. Partisanship might mean a lot less gets done, but goddamnit that’s way better than everyone getting together and making the wrong choices.
[/quote]

Well said Irish, well said.

51

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lincoln had more substance, that is obvious, but his experience was still relatively similar to Obama’s level.

Ha ha…hoo…he…he…whaha ha ha…gha ooka whaa… (choking now)…phew…Funny stuff.[/quote]

What exactly did Lincoln do before running for President… oh yeah! He was a freshman Senator! And Obama is a… wait for… freshman senator!

Lincoln had more substance, but “experience” wise, by the true definition of the term, they are on equal ground.

52

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Let’s unpack “experience” under the US Constitution.

The Constitution provides that only a person at or over the age of 35 can be elected and serve. The reason, obviously, was to make sure the President was of sufficient maturity, experience, and character.

Now, the earliest figure I can dig up for life expectancy is the year 1820, some 40 years after the Framers decided on the 35 figure. In 1820, the life expectancy was 39.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us

(I welcome any more enlightening statistics)

As such, here we have the Framers wanting someone who, by measure of 1820, had lived 89.7% of their lives prior to being eligible to serve as President.

Naturally, the Framers’ age, if scaled to modern mortality rates, would be different we were writing the Constitution today - the average age of mortality has nearly doubled since 1820, so if you want a rough rule, double the minimum age to serve.

All this is an abstract exercise, but it reinforces one important point - experience matters. It’s not the only thing, and there are other kinds of experience outside of serving as a public official, but this notion that experience is a non-issue is contradicted by the very Constitution that restricts who can and cannot serve in the role.

Experience matters - and if you don’t think it does, you should bring that up and defend the point in your next interview.

EDIT: typo.[/quote]

Are you sure 39 was the life expectancy for a rich white man who does little to no manual labor and has access to doctors and such, the only kind of person who was going to be running for President?

Experience DOES matter, but only to a point. Substance and previous political history are much more important to determining Presidential material. To go strictly by an “experience” scale, George Bush Snr. should have been one of the greatest Presidents of all time. He was mediocre.

There are many, many, many reasons to not vote for Obama. They include his lack of substance, his over use of platitudes, his flimsy “plans”, and his far-left political profile.

His ‘experience’ can be made up for by the experience of those he surrounds himself with. Unless he’s surrounding himself with fellow newbies, the experience level between the two administrations (McCain and Obama) will be nearly identical.

53

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lincoln had more substance, that is obvious, but his experience was still relatively similar to Obama’s level.

Ha ha…hoo…he…he…whaha ha ha…gha ooka whaa… (choking now)…phew…Funny stuff.

What exactly did Lincoln do before running for President… oh yeah! He was a freshman Senator! And Obama is a… wait for… freshman senator!

Lincoln had more substance, but “experience” wise, by the true definition of the term, they are on equal ground.[/quote]

Lincoln was never a senator, losing to Douglas. He was a very highly-paid railroad lawyer. He was put up by the party to get federal funding (they called it ‘internal improvements’ then and it was a scam) to get free land for the transcontinental railroad.

Lincoln’s payoff was info about the railhead being in Council Bluffs, Iowa — Lincoln bought land there, made a big bundle.

Lincoln was a much more intelligent crook than Obama. Lincoln wouldn’t let the banks in on the railroaders’ game, then had the temerity to print his own money, instead of borrowing it for war, which pissed off the bankers. Paybacks were a bitch, even back then.

Most of our Presidents have been crooks, btw. If they weren’t crooks, they’d have been eaten alive by the other crooks.

54

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lincoln had more substance, that is obvious, but his experience was still relatively similar to Obama’s level.

Ha ha…hoo…he…he…whaha ha ha…gha ooka whaa… (choking now)…phew…Funny stuff.

What exactly did Lincoln do before running for President… oh yeah! He was a freshman Senator! And Obama is a… wait for… freshman senator!

Lincoln had more substance, but “experience” wise, by the true definition of the term, they are on equal ground.[/quote]

Lincoln was a high-priced railroad lawyer, never a senator. His gang lost to Douglas’ gang in 1858. He was put up by the railroad to push ‘internal improvements’ (a scam for free land). His payoff as POTUS was advance info on where the railhead would be — Council Bluffs, Iowa. He made a bundle.

He hated banks, being a railroad guy, and had the temerity to print his own money. The bankers got pissed, having been cut out of a lot of loan profits, and so old Abe got paid back.

Lincoln is, IMO, a far smarter crook than Obama. Of course, Lincoln is probably the smartest of the bunch, after James Madison.

55

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lincoln had more substance, that is obvious, but his experience was still relatively similar to Obama’s level.

Ha ha…hoo…he…he…whaha ha ha…gha ooka whaa… (choking now)…phew…Funny stuff.

What exactly did Lincoln do before running for President… oh yeah! He was a freshman Senator! And Obama is a… wait for… freshman senator!

Lincoln had more substance, but “experience” wise, by the true definition of the term, they are on equal ground.[/quote]

Lincoln lost to Douglas, in 1858. Lincoln was never a senator. He was a highly-paid railroad lawyer, put up by his party to secure free land for the transcontinental railroad. His payoff was a heads up about where the railhead would be, Council Bluffs, Iowa. He made a bundle.

He then froze the banks out of the war funding, as he hated banks (read his quotes). They were rather upset and expressed their displeasure in Ford’s Theatre.

Lincoln was a far more intelligent crook than Obama. Lincoln was one of our more intelligent POTUS, except for pissing off the international bankers.

58

Did I say Obama was the next Lincoln? Fuck no. He’s not even close to Lincoln.

Stop putting words in my mouth, thanks.

Politically, how much experience did Lincoln have? Not life experience, that isn’t what this is about. He had comparable political experience to Obama. Period. I’m not implying ANYTHING. Obama is not Lincoln.

You seem to think I’m arguing in Obama’s favor, when I am in fact simply arguing that inexperience is not a completely valid reason to not vote for someone. Just like I would argue against anyone who might say that McCain is simply too old to be President.

59

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

What exactly did Lincoln do before running for President… oh yeah! He was a freshman Senator! And Obama is a… wait for… freshman senator![/quote]

Well, Lincoln was a Representative. But accuracy isn’t your strong suit.

Also, go learn up on Lincoln’s legal career prior to becoming a Congressman. It’ll be illuminating.

Nope.

60

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Are you sure 39 was the life expectancy for a rich white man who does little to no manual labor and has access to doctors and such, the only kind of person who was going to be running for President?[/quote]

Just dumb. You think the Framers actually sat around and figured out an “alternative” good minimum age based on the “alternative” life expectancy of the rich white class? You know, with all of their extensive social science statistics and such?

No one is arguing that “experience” is the quintessential measure - it is one leg of a table. But, if one of those legs is particularly weak, it raises a concern that maybe the table ain’t so good.

No more, no less. Keep up.

[quote]There are many, many, many reasons to not vote for Obama. They include his lack of substance, his over use of platitudes, his flimsy “plans”, and his far-left political profile.

His ‘experience’ can be made up for by the experience of those he surrounds himself with. Unless he’s surrounding himself with fellow newbies, the experience level between the two administrations (McCain and Obama) will be nearly identical.[/quote]

Actually, the “experience” levels are not similar, because you think “being a Senator” is essentially equal among Senators. That is a silly metric. “Experience” is fluid - what have they done? Has he led the way on any legislation? Has he been a key point man on getting consensus? Has he traveled extensively?

All of these - and more - comprise a loose metric of “experience”. All Senators are not the same just because they happen to sit in the Senate. McCain has more of it - that doesn’t mean he is automatically the better candidate.

What we do know is Obama has accomplished next to nothing. His “experience” does not seem to reflect any real leadership at all - he doesn’t have a track record of getting anything done. Which, of course, suggests that since he has little experience getting anything done throughout his non-presidential career, he likely won’t get much done as president.

“Experience” - what kind of idiotic world do we live in where suddenly we have deconstructed experience as a practical non-factor in who we should elect to the most powerful position in the world?

I am going to go bury a horse upside down in my yard - the apocalypse is near.