Obama is fairly inexperienced. However, in voting for George W. Bush I pretty much gave up the right to complain about any politician's inexperience for a period of around 20 years. Obama represents something that doesn't exist on the Republican side right now: hope. How else can you explain the large number of admitted Republicans claiming they'd consider voting for Obama? If Obama is the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee is either Romney, Huckabee, or Rudy, I'll be voting for a Democratic president in November (unless some independent candidate comes in and amazes me). That would put me at one vote per party in my two presidential elections.
Great post! That made my day (well, my night), halfbreed. If Obama can connect to intelligent moderate/conservative voters like you, he's doing something right. Impeach Bush.
Here's just a quick one (there are so many others): He wants to quarantine AIDS victims. That's ****ed. But I'm very much rooting for him to win the GOP nomination, as (a) he will lose, and (b) the GOP will get what they deserve for relying on self-righteous religious folks for so many years. Apart from all that, I very much appreciate his populist rhetoric - also based in his religious beliefs. But that's exactly the stuff the Republican party doesn't like about him. As a Democrat who is ecstatic about Obama's rise, I respect him deeply on many levels while I excoriate him on others. But while I respect him on some things, I would love for either he or Romney to be the nominee. McCain's the only guy that has any chance at all to beat us (and that's a tough bet since we'd still have a major advantage over any Republican in this climate, we'd have an even greater one with Obama as the nominee, and Republicans generally HATE him). Huckabee or Romney would be fun as hell. And, of course, Giuliani and Thompson aren't even really running anymore. I say that last bit as a lover of politics and a person who would enjoy a good race, even though as a lover of America we really don't need one. And it doesn't much seem like we'll have one. If Obama does what he should, this is going to be a blowout. God bless America.
I agree with Otto that Obama is getting the Reggie Bush treatment. He's a great speaker no doubt about it and has tremendous charisma but his positions are very liberal and not very broad based. He has shown that he can work across the lines in the IL state senate but hasn't been that proven on the US Senate. Obama might very well be a once in a generation president on par with Reagan but other than his charisma there's nothing to solidly back that up. The impression I get of Obama supporters is that most of them support Obama for nebulous reasons yet can't put their finger on exactly what policy Obama will enact. I think the comparison with JFK is apt that he might very well represent a generational sea change but it should also be noted that JFK accomplished very little in office and his foreign policy was far from successful. It took LBJ to really push through JFK's vision and he was the type of politician more like Hillary Clinton than Obama.
He wanted to "isolate" AIDS victims in 1992, when making a speech where he was trying to get people to donate to Cancer research instead of AIDS reasearch. I say that when someone says that they no longer believe something they said 15 years ago, we believe them.
Let's just keep this nugget on file. I recall similar boasts on election day in 2004 that John Forbes Kerry was going to receive the biggest electoral mandate since Reagan. Your track record of predictions has been... well... atrocious. Last night I was reading through some old posts as the surge was announced, man those libs have some egg on their face after our troops succeeded.
What exactly about Huckabee DO you like? He's an economic populist who advocates a tax plan that virtually every economist thinks is disastrous. Not only is it terribly regressive, it requires a huge administrative undertaking in the distribution of rebates, and it also requires that everyone in the country register with the government in order to receive such rebates. He supports protectionism and excessive government spending. The Cato Institute gave him a D in its fiscal policy report card for American governors.
mission accomplished? shouldnt make predictions too early. although violence has decreased, that is no guarantee that the iraqi government will be able to hammer out a lasting peace. seeing as how the iraqi politicians are sitting on their hands and al sadr is consolidating his power among the shia (wiping out shia adversaries), this thing is far from over. its hard to see a favorable outcome in iraq no matter how long we stay. the opposing groups are just waiting for us to leave so that they can try to gain control. but enough thread hijacking. obama is on a roll. doesnt look good for clinton. mccain is also making headway. y is fred still in the race?
This is not true at all. Many of the best economists in the country, including the Cato Institute's Nobel Laureate Vernon L. Smith, endorse the Fair Tax. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find an economist not tied to an accounting or finance firm (who has an interest in keeping a complex tax system) who doesn't support the Fair Tax.
On top of everything else mentioned the guy would represent the completion of the selling out of the Republican Party to the religious fundamentalist wing. As someone who prides himself on being at least somewhat of a libertarian who generally votes Republican due to simply more in common, it's amazing to see the direction the party has decided to go. We seem to care more now about what church the guy says he attends rather than what he'll do when in office. This shouldn't happen. Once the fundamentalist wing completes their takeover of the party, the GOP nominee will only have to satisfy these requirements: 1) Hate liberals. 2) Be an evangelical. 3) Strike people as a nice fella. People like Huckabee are going to be the downfall of intelligent politics in this country. His entire persona is based on a "it worked for GWB, I can do it, also." He takes pride in being woefully ignorant on anything that happens outside our country. He refuses to take responsibility for inactions in his past. He's basically a poor man's version of GWB. I voted for GWB in 2004 (the first presidential election I was able to vote for). If given the opportunity to choose between Kerry and Bush again, I might still choose Bush. Do not take that as an endorsement of everything Bush has done. I just did not like anything about John Kerry. The country needs a President who will represent us well and who is smarter than most of the populace. Huckabee satisfies neither of those requirements. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2yj_okz7ZwI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2yj_okz7ZwI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I find this whole line of thinking curious (I know you're not pushing it as a major problem). What is the benefit of experience? Knowing the right decisions, right? But what issues are we concerned with that on? Foreign policy - what happens if we get attacked. Everything else can be learned. There's no emergency to be ready on Day #1 to tackle health policy -it's going to be a multi-year process anyway. The reality is that none of the candidates has that type of experience dealing w/ being attacked. Being a governor does not prepare you to deal with sudden international terrorism. Nor does being in Washington for many years. Negotiating with foreign leaders on planned, controlled missions (Richardson, for example) doesn't either. President is a unique job in America and none of the jobs any of these guys held gives you "experience" at it - maybe the major possible exceptions in general would be having been VP or in one of the critical cabinet spots - Chief of Staff, Sec of State, Sec of Defense. I'm much more interested in a candidate that shows the ability to stay level-headed, think through things rationally and cooly, and make smart decisions.
President Bush was a governor...that was his experience. If you liked/supported him...how did he have more qualifications than Obama? President Clinton was a governor...that was his experience. If you liked/supported him...how did he have more qualifications than Obama?
Incorrect - there are many economists who support consumption taxes, or value added taxes, but Huckabee's Fair Tax has drawn widespread ridicule.
Major, MadMax, As voters, we tend to forget about the biggest part of a President's job when we vote. The biggest part of a President's job is managing the Federal Government. We tend to gloss over that while concentrating on his or her secondary job, setting policy. (And perhaps for good reason, the policy lasts beyond the end of the term. The management the executive branch will change with a new President.) Being a governor (or to a lesser extent mayor or CEO) prepares a President for the big part of the job, unless he was a governor with no real power. Being a legislator or lawyer does nothing to prepare you for that part of the job. On the managing the Federal Government of the job, in my mind, there's one candidate who's clearly better than all the rest. Too bad he's changed his positions so many times we have no clue how he'd do on the setting policy part of the job.
I think when talking about experience that being a governor is exactly the type of experience that people are looking for: executive experience. Personally, I could care less. Sometimes a lack of experience is the best thing. That means you've had less time to get too deep into the muck that is DC. Obama's message of change wouldn't work if he was as "experienced" as some want him to be. Experienced politicians do not make change.
I've read most of that "widespread ridicule", much of which comes from Bruce Bartlett, a respected economist who helped set tax policy during the eighties. Please provide me with any rejection of the Fair Tax proposal from any notable economist who doesn't have an interest in a complex tax system. There is plenty of criticism about the presentation and the confusion of using an embedded tax when we are used to adding a sales tax at the end, but again, you'll be hard pressed to find rejection of it from anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interest.
I do agree to an extent that having been in a managerial role has that benefit - but that's not the type of experience people are talking about when they are campaigning. They are talking the need for experience on Day #1 to handle some unknown crisis (presumably a terrorist attack). Beyond that, there is certainly some benefit to being governor in the regard you describe, but I'd suggest its something slightly different. The President him/herself does very little actual managing of the vast government - that's de-centralized to so many agencies, etc that are run by career government people. Picking a good cabinet and leadership around you is the key there. Where I think the biggest benefit comes is in the mindset of being in charge and a decision-maker, as opposed to being in Congress and working in a group of 100 or 450 people to make decisions. I do think that's a benefit and why Presidents often come from the governor position than the Senate. But I don't see that as the experience argument people are currently making.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/us/politics/06economy.html http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/huckabee_hawks_the_fair_tax.php http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/huckabees-fair.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/why_the_fair_ta.html http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010808A And of course there's Bartlett's paper, which shouldn't be discredited simply because he was involved with tax policy in the 1980s.
kennedy only had what 14-15 years of experience, and he was never governor. i don't think experience or lack there of is necessarily a bad thing.
