Are You Better off Today Than Eight Years Ago?

» vemartin - Re: Voting Democratic...

Bucky,

Thank you for your support and your enthusiasm! I whole-heartedly agree with every point you made in the forgoing discussion point. I still find it hard to believe that anyone in his or her right mind could bring themselves to vote for George W., but he was overwhelmingly nominated by those Americans who don’t seem to mind that fact the all of his bulb is a little dim. Just goes the show you that the Electoral College has yet to outlive its usefulness!

Vincent Martin
Contributing Editor
Politics & Minorities

-- posted by vemartin

Permalink Print Discussion

» Lawhawk - Intelligence was never a measure in determining who would become

Intelligence was never a measure in determining who would become the President of the US. Even after people realized that Reagan fell asleep on the job or couldn't remember details on major issues, the US voted in a landslide to reelect him. GWB, while not an intellectual by any stretch, has led the 2d most populous state for several years (although many would also like to point out that the Texas governor is one of the weakest structurally vis-a-vis the legislature).

I find Gore to have some good characteristics; most notably his positions on the environment. However, his record on personal rights leaves something to be desired (remember the PMRC). I don't need someone telling me what I can or cannot watch on TV - that is what the remote control and the on-off switch are for. His candor (or lack thereof) on the fundraising issue also is an important issue.

That being said, I think the US is in a better place (mostly because of the strong Wall Street) and not because of the Congress or President (GO GREENSPAN!). Anyway, if the captain gets "credit" for a sinking ship, then he should get credit for running a ship in smooth waters. Gore fits that bill. (No pun intended).

-- posted by Lawhawk

Permalink Print Discussion

» Brian Tubbs - Sure is lonely in here...

I seem to be the only Republican in this corner of Suite101.com, and it does get lonely now and then. But that's okay...I'll keep the faith anyway. :-)

Let me side-step the whole issue of whether George W. Bush has a sufficient IQ for the job, and instead zero in on the resume factor.

In my mind, I find it a bit odd that a "voting Democrat" like Bucky would point to a lack of credentials on the part of George W. Bush when I assume he gladly pulled the lever (pushed the button, scratched the box, whatever) for Bill Clinton in 1992. As Ross Perot so beautifully said, Clinton's service as governor of Arkansas qualified him for the presidency as much as owning a mom-and-pop convenience store qualifies the owner to become the CEO of Wal-Mart.

Before you all react too strongly to that, I'm not going where you think I'm going. Hang with me...

When comparing resumes, George H.W. Bush had the superior credentials in 1992, and yet the country chose Clinton instead. Why? Answer: In Bill Clinton's own words: "Experience isn't everything!"

I couldn't agree more. So what if George W. Bush has ONLY been governor of Texas! (I say only half-facetiously, since that's a pretty significant post). Granted, Al Gore has a longer resume than George W. Bush. I don't dispute that for a moment. But does that automatically make Gore more qualified to be President?

If you say "yes," then I would urge you to look at your history books a bit more closely. What "credentials" did George Washington have when he was given command of the Continental Army in the Revolutionar War? (For those that don't know, he had commanded troops in only 2 battles - both rather small-scale affairs. One started the French and Indian War. The other, he lost). What qualifications did Nathanael Greene have to become a general in Washington's army? (He was a Quaker and had never been in or seen combat. He read books to get the knowledge he needed, and he became one of Washington's most trusted and effective field commanders, ultimately luring Cornwallis into the trap that Washington and the French sprung at Yorktown). I could go on all night about many of the Founding Fathers who were in their twenties and thirties (many of them self-taught and with little experience) who made huge contributions to the founding of this country!

Moving forward in history, what about Abraham Lincoln? He was an attorney who had served one term (ONE TERM!) in the House of Representatives. He then runs for the Senate - and loses. And then becomes the President of the United State! Talk about not having a resume!!

I could go on and on. Forget politics and look at the business world. What kind of a resume did Michael Dell have when he started his business - you know that small little start-up that we now call Dell Computers? He's only worth 17 billion dollars (and some change). He tops Fortune's list as the richest man under 40. And there are quite a few rich people under 40, including Dan Snyder (owner of the Washington Redskins - a very disappointed owner, I'm sure, after this past Sunday, but I digress) who started Snyder Communications in his late twenties, and is now a multi-multi-multi millionaire. Then there's Michael Saylor, Jeff Bezos, etc., etc., etc.

George W. Bush is no Abe Lincoln or Michael Dell. But he doesn't HAVE to be. He has to be George W. Bush.

I salute Al Gore for his long resume. George W.'s father had an even longer resume when he ran for President in 1988 and an equally impressive resume (minus the VP tenure) when he ran for President in 1980. But in that year, the country picked a former actor and governor of California to lead the way. And I think it was a wise choice.

Bottom line: The length of the resume matters very little. What matters is the quality of one's experience insofar as how they make use of the opportunities they are given and how they address the responsibilities they are charged with. Evaluating George W. Bush's record in Texas is fair game. But asserting that the governorship of Texas is insufficient experience for the American presidency puts you in the same camp as those who said that one term in Congress was insufficient for a certain Republican candidate in 1860. Many of those folks ended up serving in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet.

Let's not focus on resumes, which deal with the past. Let's instead focus on the candidates' respective visions for America. Note that I'm saying we ignore their resumes. Their track records can be an indication of how effective they'll be on the job, but there's more to a person than his or her resume. And there's more to choosing a President than measuring the length of a candidate's credentials.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion

» Brian Tubbs - Correction - typo

The sentence "Note that I'm saying we ignore their resumes" should read "Note that I'm NOT saying we should ignore their resumes." Sorry for any confusion.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion

» BuckyRea - Michael and Brian

Michael writes:

"Intelligence was never a measure in determining who would become the President of the US. Even after people realized that Reagan fell asleep on the job or couldn't remember details on major issues, the US voted in a landslide to reelect him.

Michael, I'd like to make a distinction between booksmarts and streetsmarts. While it was true that Ronald Reagan probably couldn't recite the quadratic equation or in his 70s have perfect recall of certain specific facts, I think folks put up with his deficiencies because of other qualities that he brought to the table. He was a tireless booster of America, he stood up for his deeply held and effectively advocated beliefs, he was in possession of a genuine interest in the public welfare, and he represented a clear change from a predecessor's track record that was clearly not working.

I may not have agreed with most of his beliefs, but there is no doubting the sincerity of those beliefs because he spent so many years of his adult life speaking out for them. He may not have been able to memorize all 50 state capitals or the name of his own HUD secretary, but it doesn't take high abstract reasoning abilities to understand one's own positions on public policies and to commit to working for them.

What leadership does take is commitment and a belief in public service. Reagan had it, Gore and Clinton have it, and pere Bush has it. George W doesn't have it and lacks the track record to prove otherwise.

Brian writes:

I seem to be the only Republican in this corner of Suite101.com, and it does get lonely now and then.

Yes, poor pitiful you Brian. Next time I see you unable to hold your own in a political debate will be the first time I see you unable to do so. Frankly there's a big difference between Tubbs being outnumbered and Tubbs being out-matched. When the latter happens, I'll call Ripley's :o)

In my mind, I find it a bit odd that a "voting Democrat" like Bucky would point to a lack of credentials on the part of George W. Bush when I assume he gladly pulled the lever (pushed the button, scratched the box, whatever) for Bill Clinton in 1992.

I misspoke. No, I mistyped. I got my definitions crossed in trying to distinguish in my mind between credentials and qualifications. Governor Bush has the credentials but lacks the qualifications, which, borrowing from one of your examples, is the exact opposite of the case of former Representative Lincoln's resume in 1860.

Yes, this is another one of my hair-splitting definition arguments, but I think this is a very important distinction.

Let's start with an analogy. Say that you're about to hire someone for a job in your office. Let's also say that it's a pretty important job. When you look at a job candidate's resume do you only look at the job titles that went with his previous employment? Of course not. You will go on to interview him and ask about what he did with his previous position, what he worked on, what he failed to work on, and what he would like to accomplish in this new position. You look to see if he cares about the work involved in this new job; And the more important the job, the deeper you look.

There's a great deal more to being president than having held certain offices in the past (which is of course your point about Lincoln). As a governor George W may have the right to compare himself and his readiness for office to Bill Clinton in '92 or Ronald Reagan in '80, but if you look below the superficial titles of office, I'm sure you'll find that it is not a favorable comparison.

Ronald Reagan was derided by some of his critics as being merely an ex B-actor, but that was hardly the case when he ran for governor in 1966. He was an ex union president and for many years a radio commentator who specifically addressed public policy issues. Once he became governor, he was more than just a political office holder, he was an undisputed leader of the conservative movement.

The same goes for Clinton's leadership in education reform and the Democratic Leadership Council, and for Lincoln's leadership in the Free Soil movement, and Washington's leadership in the patriot cause in 1775. Their claims to the mantel of higher leadership positions did not rest merely on the badges of office (which Bush's supporters have been so quick to tout) but on the records of service that they had accumulated in their lives up until that time. Can the same be said of Gov Bush? Is there some movement that he leads?

No, Mr Bush in contrast has, to redirect your words, "ONLY been governor of Texas." It's very important to ask what he has done with his leadership position. It's equally important to understand that the answer is not much.

The statement that the governorship of Texas is "a pretty significant post" is misleading. It's not signficant unless the office holder chooses to do something with that post. On paper, the governor of Texas is something significantly less than the chief executives of many other states.

As part of our Jeffersonian tradition in Texas, our governor makes very few political appointments (we have a pretty long ballot for elected state officers), has very little sway with the state legislature (Bush's insistence that he got along with the Democrats in the Legislature is disingenuous--they got along because he didn't represent any real threat to their agendas and because the Lege isn't organized along partisan lines), and is really only charged with enforcing laws (not determining the breadth of policies such as the president or the governors of Arkansas or California are responsible for).

Now some governors in our recent past have used the office as a bully pulpit to advocate particular causes. Gov White's leadership on education reform (using initiatives copied from Clinton's record in the 80s, by the by), Gov Clements's opposition to the lottery and advocacy of fiscal restraint, and Gov Richards's advocacy of modernizing and streamlining state services and improving our infrastructure all spring to mind. Bush on the other hand hasn't really done much by way of standing up for particular policies other than defend the death penalty and talk vaguely about compassion.

Prior to being governor, George Bush never went to a single school board or city council meeting, never led or even signed a ballot petition effort, never wrote a single letter to the editor on a public debate, never spoke up for a charitable or community cause, never agitated against an unfair tax, never did anything that might indicate he cared one flip about public service or the life of his community. He was not a leader. In 1993 he even held off committing to the run for governor until he was sure he wasn't in the running for Commissioner of Baseball, which was his real ambition.

Is Gore more qualified than Bush to be President? Yes--and so are dozens of Republicans, too. Jeb Bush springs to mind. So does Dick Cheney. It would not take long to draw up a long and substantial list of people with real qualifications and genuine records of public service and leadership who could give Gore a real run for the money, who would not try to limit the potential audience for the candidate debates, who would not cuss in front of a bank of microphones and call it "private comments," who would be able to articulate their own policy positions. As a Democrat I would certainly attack these other candidates' positions and records. But with a real leader in opposition to me my attacks wouldn't include questions about their lack of "skills set."

So yes, I stand corrected. Gov Bush does not lack the credentials to run for president. He only lacks the qualifications to serve.

-- posted by BuckyRea

Permalink Print Discussion

» Brian Tubbs - Distinction Accepted

I accept your clarification, and I think you've made a very persuasive argument in illustrating the distinction between credentials and qualifications. The main objective of my post was to draw such a clarification out, though I hoped it wouldn't be so well stated to the detriment of my candidate. :-)

In W's defense, he did run for Congress a number of years ago (and I'm embarrassed that I've forgotten the year he did so) and he also played a rather significant role on his dad's reelection team in 1992. (Of course, that is not necessarily something to lead off with on your resume, given the outcome).

Bush strikes me as someone who dedicates himself to what he's focused on 100%, and basically pays little attention to matters not on his radar screen. I think that, after losing his congressional race several years ago, he turned completely back toward business and baseball - leaving politics off his radar screen completely. Cheney did basically the same thing while CEO of Haliburton (sp?), as his voting record these last few years illustrates.

(I do not excuse such a shameful voting record, by the way, but I will cut him some slack in that he has rendered much service to his country over his lifetime. I can understand how some folks get exhausted after many years of toiling in politics and then just turn away completely, not even wanting to go vote. I understand that, even though I don't agree with it. In Cheney's case, however, I don't question his patriotism. He's proven that over his lifetime of public service, but I do think he was irresponsible with his citizenship during his time as a Big Oil exec. And that's not good. But back to Bush...).

I can't dispute your point that George W. Bush is (his congressional race aside) largely a Johnny-come-lately to the political fray. But this is not automatically a disqualifier. What matters most is what Bush will do as President, not so much what he has done before he got into politics. Yet even if you were to disagree with me, there's something to be said for the fact that Bush has been a business executive as well as a political leader.

As to trading on his daddy's name (a point raised in your original post), I don't think he'll ever shake that stigma. There are plusses and minuses to being the child of someone famous or wealthy. On the one hand, doors are open to you that otherwise wouldn't be. On the other, you're always questioned and held in suspicious regard for your accomplished.

I don't think this is fair frankly. Look at Robert F. Kennedy. Would he have been given the opportunity to serve as Attorney General and become a famous political leader in his own right had his brother not been elected President OR had his father not been an influential multi-millionaire? Yet RFK earned his place in history. I don't agree with everything he espoused, but I admire his tenacity and statesmanship in his crusade for civil rights and social justice.

What about the other Kennedys? There are quite a few of them. Some of them have squandered their opportunities. Others made the most of them. Should they have NOT been given those opportunities because of their famous name?

Look at the Adams family. Talk about benefiting from a name! John Quincy Adams was practically groomed for the presidency. Yet who can dispute that Mr. Adams made a great contribution to American history? (Albeit, his greatest contribution was probably advancing the anti-slavery cause after serving as President).

The fact that George W. Bush has benefited from his father's name doesn't disturb me. Whatever his advantages, he has capitalized on many opportunities - getting a Harvard MBA, running his own enterprise, owning a baseball team, serving as the governor of the second largest state in the Union. If he adds to that resume the presidency of the United States, it'll be because the people of this country choose to give him that honor, not because he was anointed by his father.

I've deliberately avoided getting into some of your specific criticisms of Bush's performance as governor of Texas. I want to make sure that we at least arrive at some level of agreement on these other points first before moving on to that fertile ground for debate. :-)

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

» BuckyRea - ARGH!

Stop these italics NOW!

Hope this works

-- posted by BuckyRea

Permalink Print Discussion

» Brian Tubbs - Sorry about the italics

That was my fault. I forgot to close the italics.

Your point is well taken on Cheney. And you've got me curious about Washington. I'll have to look that up. I do know that he continued to receive visitors, and followed the political scene rather closely in his correspondence.

President Adams, of course, didn't let the old man retire, calling him up to active duty to command the American army in the event of a French invasion. As James Thomas Flexner, one of Washington's best biographers, points out, it's good that the French didn't attack. Washington was definitely past his prime as a leader of men by that point in his life.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion

» grandma_spider - Re: Sure is lonely in here...

In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:

Bush...a good cheerleader with the brains around him to tell him what to do and say.
Reagan...great at acting and loved the camera, who also had others telling him what's what...nough said

-- posted by grandma_spider

Permalink Print Discussion