Smasharoo wrote:
Really? The incumbent party's nominee has more experience at the federal level? When has that ever happened before?? Shocking!!!
Put the crack pipe down Smash. There's no incumbent advantage in this election, and you know it.
Quote:
Rally, what's your point here, buffoon?
Um... That the guy who served 2 terms in the house and then 4 terms in the senate has more federal experience then a first term senator.
It was so obvious I didn't think I had to spell it out, but there you go!
Quote:
How much experience did Reagan have at the federal level? None. How much experience did Bush have at the federal level? None. Clinton? None. Carter? None.
They had executive experience. All four of those people were Governors before being elected to President.
You did get that I was being specific to this case, where none of the candidates have served a high level executive position, right? Normally, executive position (ie: state governor) trumps US Congress experience. However, since none of the three have served as a governor, it's relevant to look at how long each has served in the US congress.
It's not like I'm making this criteria up from thin air or anything...
Quote:
It's a meaningless distinction. My point was that the PHILOSOPHY of the GOP is to run away from experience in Washington.
I disagree with you, but whatever.
Um... And in what way does this support the notion that Obama is the "right" candidate?
Do you just spin yourself around in circles all the time? Cause we're right back to the "how does him not being someone else qualify him" argument that I started with.
Quote:
To use this meaningless distinction as some sort of arbitrary criteria because of the current situation is just a waste of everyone's time.
It's a relative statement. McCain has more experience in the same areas as Obama. Period. Obama's highest claim to elected office is US senate. McCains been there for 15 years longer then Obama. What is unclear about that?
Quote:
If you had any integrity at all you'd have supported Gore over Bush if this is your criteria. It's clearly not. It's clearly NO ONE's criteria when voting for President.
It's not the only criteria Smash. Stop being so "all or nothing". You know that's a moronic argument.
I suppose the difference is that if you want, I *can* list off the reasons I chose to vote for a "less experienced" former Governor over the former Vice President in the 2000 election.
I was kinda trying to get Red to back up his statement about Obama. Because, he doesn't appear to have *anything* for him at all except a bunch of people hoping he'll actually do the radically stupid things he talks about, and a bunch more people who blindly follow whatever those people say.
It's a mob reaction. Exactly the wrong reasons to elect someone. It's not like Bush won because he was a massively popular figure who told everyone what they wanted to hear Smash. Quite the opposite. He wasn't charismatic. But he held the right positions and was a "safe" bet for Conservatives.
Can you say the same about a demagogue like Obama?
Quote:
It's a personality contest, it always has been.
It is for the Liberal Smash. It's not for the rest of us.
How else do you explain Bush? He's not popular, nor does he have a great personality. He's particularly un-presidential.
Ever consider that this is the problem with your "side"? You keep trying to elect people on the basis of their popular appeal, while we put up candidates who have better platforms. Fortunately, so far the voters have been smart enough to usually avoid the popular-appeal candidate...
Quote:
The most qualified person rarely wins. That's what you get in a republic. The person people like the most wins, not who will do the best job. Ask John Kerry.
Why did Bush win? You seriously think he was more popular then Kerry or Gore?
Obviously, popularity combined with other things helps, but it's not going to win you an election all by itself. You can be the most popular and charismatic candidate in the world and you'll lose if your platform sucks. That was Kerry's problem. He spoke better. He had much better crowd appeal. But at the end of the day, people didn't like what he was saying.
Maybe you guys should learn from this instead of continually trying the same failed strategy and then wondering why it didn't work again this time?...