Posted on 07/02/2011 12:25:07 PM PDT by Kaslin
“Not enough executive experience.”
(OH, Wait! that’s what they said about Palin in ‘08.)
I don’t understand why there is this mantra that history is “bound to repeat itself.”
I agree that reviewing historical trends is helpful, and that there is a reason, sometimes, why trends persist the way they do.
But just as that disclaimer goes on investments: past performance (or presidential cycles) is no guarantee of future performance. And, as I said on another post, don’t y’all watch the NFL draft?
The U.S. had a completely aberrational election right before the Civil War and we may be in a similar juncture of the country having to figure out its identity going into its next century.
Also much about how past presidential elections developed was dependent upon the old ways of disseminating news, reaching the public, and fundraising. Those old rules are over!
This is the first fully new-media, social-media-ized presidential election in history. The parties and the Establishment have the ground shifting under their feet. I honestly believe we are going to see a new way of doing things.
Just as Palin is said to be going to run a new, unconventional campaign (if she runs), this is basically what Bachmann is doing. She is doing it a new way. She is not running as a Member of Congress. She is running as someone who had already attracted national attention and fundraising through her millions of appearances on talk radio, tv, at rallies, etc.
From the looks of the presidents we have had, whatever criteria we have been using for the proper "training" to be president has not been working. Let's not do the same thing over and over again with the dismal results we have seen. It's time to break the mold and get some real people as candidates.
“She is not running as a Member of Congress.” Oh, is that so? When did she resign her “Membership in Congress”?
Past precedents are irrelevant today. We have our first Marxist President, and the Constitution is in shreds. All that really matters is whether the candidate is dedicated to Constitutional principles of limited govt.
Professional politicians have betrayed this country. G.W. Bush, Jimmah Carter, and Rudy Giuliani all had "executive experience." Where did that get us?
What else could Palin say? That indeed is a “difference” between her and Bachmann, but my question is, is it *necessarily* a difference with a meaning?
I personally don’t think so. At least not automatically so. And certainly not it’s not conclusive, the one fact that is the be-all and end-all.
That doesn’t mean I’m fully convinced Bachmann is ready to be president. It just means I think the “no executive experience” cry has become a straw man and a rote reply that doesn’t correlate with any substantial distinction.
Ask Bachmann what’s the difference between her and Palin — she might say “no congressional experience, no dealing with legislation such as Obamacare, Medicare & Social Security issues, federal budget and tax code,” etc.
That’s just a fact and stating so doesn’t it make it more than a fact, i.e. determinative of which of those two would make the better president.
What I’m suggesting is that as we go through this process, IMO it’s not enough to throw out mantras such as “no executive experience.” There needs to be a substantive discussion on why that is a difference with a MEANING, given ALL the facts and circumstances.
For example, given the field we have now (no Palin), would you think Romney, who has “executive experience,” would be a better president than Bachmann, who doesn’t?
Surely you can’t mean that only “executive experience” (however you are defining that) makes one qualified for POTUS?
**************************************
I doubt that there are many here who would find that to be a difficult choice, but fortunately, those are not yet our only options.
Imho, experience does matter.
Obviously I didn't mean that literally. Sorry you took it that way.
What I meant was:
Bachmann's political calling card ("claim to fame," so to speak) really has very little to do with the fact that she's a congresscritter.
What brought her national attention, and turned her into a fundraising magnet, was her approach to the issues and her constant work to get her views out there through addressing rallies, appearances on talk radio and tv, and speeches.
Now, of course, she was invited to do those things because her congresscrittership gave her a platform from which to speak. But her profile is quite unlike any of the Members of Congress who have run in previous years (such as, say, Duncan Hunter). They really were known to very few people when they tried to make a run for President. Some of them thought appearing on Meet the Depressed or whatever gave them national spotlight. Wrong.
Bachmann is nationally known and is a national fundraiser. That support gravitated to her and she in turn worked hard to build it and grow it. Love her or hate her, she is a national figure now, well beyond mere Representative status.
Yes.
As I said, don’t y’all watch the NFL draft?
A candidate’s true ability, talent and “rightness” for the times can’t be fully evaluated by some checklist and a formula for standardized stats.
That process can be helpful, but you’re still going to have a certain number of people who seem to meet all the criteria go bust, while a certain number of people who no one thought had anything going for them turn out to be major, historical, fantastic players.
Smart scouts use the checklist. But they also use their head. And their gut.
I’m starting to think that maybe this “no executive experience” thingie is just another way of saying “not Palin.”
Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t really have meaning in evaluating the “not Palin” candidate’s ability or talent to serve.
It would be like writing off a QB because he’s “not Manning” or “not Brady.’ Okay. But that doesn’t say anything about how the QB could contribute to the team (or not).
Worth repeating.
Of course experience matters.
The question is what kind(S) of experience matters, and whether it’s an automatic qualifier or disqualifer for POTUS, regardless of what else the candidate brings to the table.
Fair enough.
But if I had to choose between someone dedicated to principles of Constitutional government and someone with “executive experience” who was wishy-washy on limited government, I wouldn’t give a rat’s behind about the latter.
The POTUS is not running the country like a CEO runs a corporation (thank God and our Founding Fathers). This is not a business position, it’s a LEADERSHIP position.
Leaders can lead, or figure out to lead, regardless of their experience. That’s what leadership is.
If I have a choice on primary day between Sarah and Bachmann, I'm choosing Sarah. One reason, which I personally believe is important, is that Sarah has experience that makes her a better fit for the presidency than Bachmann.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.