Hmm. It appears that Barack Obama doesn’t really know much about the Bush Doctrine either.
So from what I can see, it’s okay if the guy at the top of the ticket doesn’t understand what Charlie Gibson means, but it’s not okay if the Republican at the bottom of the ticket isn’t sure either. Or is it just not okay if it’s a woman who isn’t sure?
Mayhap it has something to do with the fact that nobody fully agrees on what it is. So if someone asks you if you support it, what would you do to sound smart besides ask them what they mean by it?
To be clear, I have argued for months that Governor Palin isn’t really qualified to be Vice President. I was saying that long before Senator McCain selected her. On the other hand, I have to concede that no candidate is perfect, and in my mind her other strengths compensate for that area of weakness. And, I do find lack of experience in a Vice Presidential nominee to be less disturbing than lack of experience for a Presidential nominee. Given than Governor Palin has, in some areas, more experience than any of the men in the race, I’m still somewhat bemused by those who suggest that we should be frightened of her lack of experience in foreign policy. It’ll be on-the-job training for Governor Palin, but will be even more so for Senator Obama–whose supporters, I might add, have yet to give me a coherent and straightforward explanation as to why they think he’s more qualified on foreign policy (except that they agree with his policy positions, which isn’t really much of an answer).
Somehow I think the country will survive no matter who we pick in November, but criticisms of Governor Palin of this nature strike me as… well, either partisan, sexist, or simply ill-informed. Take your pick.
{ 4 comments }
yeah it seems to me the experience question (as well as the bush doctrine one)Â is one that a lot of people are taking both positions on, depending on which candidate they’re supporting.
I think that ANY candidate would have to do a lot of on-the-job training no matter what their previous position was.
True enough on the OJT; I’d say only someone who’d been a governor of a large state and, say, was a former Secretary of State of the U.S. would really qualify as not needing much.
In truth, no candidate for president knows exactly what will be required when they get into office. There is no prerequisite experience that fully qualifies anyone for that job because the job entails too much, and the variables are too numerous and too varied.
The process to properly select an effective candidate for president is a simple one.Â
We have one valid expectation of our President:Â That they "…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic…"Â Obviously that requirement includes a world of responsibilities and possibilities, but the question is easy to frame.
There are two characteristics we need to evaluate when we consider candidates for president. We look at experience: does the candidate have demonstrable success resolving complex responsibilities, and complex problems? Do they produce above average results?
We also look for character: does the candidate have demonstrable success in standing up for what is right in the face of unreasonable pressure? Does the candidate give us sufficient examples to believe they will actually do what they promise to do, and will they represent us satisfactorily?
Everything else is fluff.
Make a list for each of the candidates and provide verified examples where they have met these three criteria and I believe you will have a selection that you can live with.
Yeah usually it’s wise to pick a running mate who will balance your weaknesses (which you will have). GW Bush did that with Cheney; despite the carping of the partisans it was a wise move, because even though he speaks Spanish and had experience dealing with Mexican dignitaries, and was Governor of a very large state, he lacked Washington experience and foreign policy experience. Dick Cheney was a very astute choice for him, and even something of a risk as Cheney added nothing electorally to the ticket except his experience (Wyoming’s 3 electoral votes were otherwise already Bush’s anyway).
McCain has picked Palin because his years of military and Washington experience are considerable, but he lacks any true executive experience. Joe Biden also lacks that, but he definitely has years and years of Washington experience and foreign policy experience.
Al Gore was similarly helpful to President Clinton, giving him insights into Washington’s legislative bodies.
Comments on this entry are closed.