Texsox Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Just wondering what y'all think is experience that prepares someone to be President. Obviously a Senator has different experience than a small state Governor, which is different than a large state Governor, and then we have private industry CEOs. And I'm wondering if someone like Williams Gates, cabinet experience, ran a major University, etc. if that could be considered "Presidential". What about military experience? We hear about experience all the time, perhaps an independent from any specific candidate's resume would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Personally, I absolutely detest arguments for how a person is ready to be President because of their "experience". It's not experience that determines policy. It's the policies themselves, the type of people they are, etc. Once a person has reached a certain point in their career where they are able to run for that office and not be laughed at, then I think the whole experience matter is a wash. There simply is no level of experience that can prepare a person for that job, either they have the judgement and policy work to do it or they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Its very subjective - unless the person has been President before. I think experience does matter, but not always in a good way either. And there are differences between Senators, House Reps, Governors, Mayors, business execs, and other areas that are commonly referred to as experience for the job. Experience is part of the whole picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Personally it depends on what kind of experience we're talking about. Rumsfield has 40 years of experience working in Washington in a variety of executive and legislative positions, but I think we can all agree he'd be a scary president. Whereas someone like Obama, imo, has little to no relevant experience. I think timing is everything. With out current system I really think someone new with a fresh approach might be good. Even though I think I dislike just about every policy stance of Obama, I really like that he's new and could be a breath of fresh air. Course, I thought the same thing back in 2000, and I think Bush has made the old-mans club aspect of Washington even stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I take issue with the whole concept of "experience" in the first place. You could get the most experienced politician and pit him against some young guy who barely meets the age requirement and never held public office and I'd take option 2 if he had a workable plan that I agreed with. The whole reason the President has a cabinet composed of experts in the various fields is solely because the President doesn't know it all and trusts them for advice based on their expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 #1 Cash #2 Charisma #3 Solid campaign people #4 Be a white male with an Ivy league degree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Unfortunately it seems that if you wanted to become president, you almost have to run while you're in your 50's. If you're in your 40's people say you're too young, if you're in your late 60's people will say you're too old to become president. Chris Dodd used to have a commercial going saying that some of his opponents said he was too experienced. I guess I never thought you could be too experienced but that's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts