Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

  1. #1
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    12,202

    Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    From The Globe and Mail


    Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Gerald Ford had more of it than Jimmy Carter. George H.W. Bush had more of it than Ronald Reagan. Al Gore had more of it than George W. Bush. Richard Nixon had more of it than John F. Kennedy. And Donald Trump had none of it at all.

    But the question is this: Does Washington experience – or other political experience – really matter, in seeking the American presidency or in actually being the American President?

    It is an academic question – scholars have been debating this for more than a century – but it is also a practical one, particularly relevant as nearly two dozen Democrats, many of them with little or even no traditional experience, seek to defeat an incumbent President who himself had no traditional political experience. The latest is the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who officially launched his campaign on Sunday. Pete Buttigieg has already attained zeitgeist status with his fresh face and folksy manner that overshadow his inexperience at 37 years old.

    The 2020 Democratic field is unusually weak in traditional presidential preparation. Seven of the party’s White House hopefuls have been on Capitol Hill only six years. One of them, Kamala Harris, has been in the Senate only two years. Two of them have never served in an office higher than mayor. Two of them – one an entrepreneur, the other the author of spiritual and self-help books – have no political experience at all. And one of them with enormous experience – Jay Inslee, with 15 years in the House of Representatives and six as governor of Washington State – isn’t considered a major contender.

    COMMENT:-

    It appears to me that the real question to be asked is "Is ANY experience still relevant in the U.S. presidential race, or is the only relevant factor 'electability'?".

    What does it seem like to you?
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't deserve the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)

  2. #2
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    43,007

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    From The Globe and Mail


    Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Gerald Ford had more of it than Jimmy Carter. George H.W. Bush had more of it than Ronald Reagan. Al Gore had more of it than George W. Bush. Richard Nixon had more of it than John F. Kennedy. And Donald Trump had none of it at all.

    But the question is this: Does Washington experience – or other political experience – really matter, in seeking the American presidency or in actually being the American President?

    It is an academic question – scholars have been debating this for more than a century – but it is also a practical one, particularly relevant as nearly two dozen Democrats, many of them with little or even no traditional experience, seek to defeat an incumbent President who himself had no traditional political experience. The latest is the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who officially launched his campaign on Sunday. Pete Buttigieg has already attained zeitgeist status with his fresh face and folksy manner that overshadow his inexperience at 37 years old.

    The 2020 Democratic field is unusually weak in traditional presidential preparation. Seven of the party’s White House hopefuls have been on Capitol Hill only six years. One of them, Kamala Harris, has been in the Senate only two years. Two of them have never served in an office higher than mayor. Two of them – one an entrepreneur, the other the author of spiritual and self-help books – have no political experience at all. And one of them with enormous experience – Jay Inslee, with 15 years in the House of Representatives and six as governor of Washington State – isn’t considered a major contender.

    COMMENT:-

    It appears to me that the real question to be asked is "Is ANY experience still relevant in the U.S. presidential race, or is the only relevant factor 'electability'?".

    What does it seem like to you?
    A case can be made that NO Washington experience can be a positive attribute for a Presidential candidate. It would mean that the candidate hasn't been bought.
    TANSTAAFL

    Liberal turned conservative David Mamet famously said: In order to continue advancing their illogical arguments modern liberals have to pretend not to know things…

  3. #3
    Sage HumblePi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:40 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,492

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    From The Globe and Mail


    Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Gerald Ford had more of it than Jimmy Carter. George H.W. Bush had more of it than Ronald Reagan. Al Gore had more of it than George W. Bush. Richard Nixon had more of it than John F. Kennedy. And Donald Trump had none of it at all.

    But the question is this: Does Washington experience – or other political experience – really matter, in seeking the American presidency or in actually being the American President?

    It is an academic question – scholars have been debating this for more than a century – but it is also a practical one, particularly relevant as nearly two dozen Democrats, many of them with little or even no traditional experience, seek to defeat an incumbent President who himself had no traditional political experience. The latest is the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who officially launched his campaign on Sunday. Pete Buttigieg has already attained zeitgeist status with his fresh face and folksy manner that overshadow his inexperience at 37 years old.

    The 2020 Democratic field is unusually weak in traditional presidential preparation. Seven of the party’s White House hopefuls have been on Capitol Hill only six years. One of them, Kamala Harris, has been in the Senate only two years. Two of them have never served in an office higher than mayor. Two of them – one an entrepreneur, the other the author of spiritual and self-help books – have no political experience at all. And one of them with enormous experience – Jay Inslee, with 15 years in the House of Representatives and six as governor of Washington State – isn’t considered a major contender.

    COMMENT:-

    It appears to me that the real question to be asked is "Is ANY experience still relevant in the U.S. presidential race, or is the only relevant factor 'electability'?".

    What does it seem like to you?
    At least Beto O'Rourke has been a public servant on the El Paso City Council from and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Pete Buttigieg has been Mayor of South Bend for seven years, so there's some experience in public service.

    I really like Jay Inslee and Amy Klobuchar. I believe that experience in politics, particularly in Washington politics is extremely important. People just want change, they want new, fresh faces with a mixture of progressive ideology combined with conservative values. It's difficult to squeeze all that into one person running for President and also have that person have more than just a smattering of knowledge regarding geopolitics. International relations are probably more important now than anyone realizes. This country needs a president that will stand with NATO and reinforce our commitments to our EU partners. We also need someone that's going to forge bipartisan alliances and hammer out genuine, working, immigration policies.

    The democratic candidate field is already large and growing but it will soon narrow down once debates commence. I know one thing, any one of those 19 candidates would be a far cry better than this bastard that is stinking up the White House now. We have a high bar for any candidate to clear. They must have ideologies that are reflective of those of the majority of voters and yet they can't be tied up with big money corporations. They also can't be tarnished by the politics in Washington. This is why I like Jay Inslee.

  4. #4
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    61,068

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    A case can be made that NO Washington experience can be a positive attribute for a Presidential candidate. It would mean that the candidate hasn't been bought.
    A candidate being the buyer instead... isn't really better, though.
    “personal attorney” to Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the United States
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't know who [Individual-1] is and neither do you.

  5. #5
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    43,007

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    A candidate being the buyer instead... isn't really better, though.
    How would a candidate be a buyer?
    TANSTAAFL

    Liberal turned conservative David Mamet famously said: In order to continue advancing their illogical arguments modern liberals have to pretend not to know things…

  6. #6
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    61,068

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    How would a candidate be a buyer?
    What do you mean how? How is any candidate or elected official "bought" in the first place?
    “personal attorney” to Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the United States
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I don't know who [Individual-1] is and neither do you.

  7. #7
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    12,202

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    A case can be made that NO Washington experience can be a positive attribute for a Presidential candidate. It would mean that the candidate hasn't been bought.
    True, it could also mean that the candidate doesn't have a clue.
    I was told that the best things for me were to eat healthy foods, walk up hills, stop smoking cigars, and cut out drinking Scotch.
    With my record, I don't deserve the best. What's second best?
    (Retirement Dinner remarks)

  8. #8
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    43,007

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    What do you mean how? How is any candidate or elected official "bought" in the first place?
    ???

    You said a candidate could be a buyer. I asked you how. You respond about a candidate being bought.

    Dude...make up your mind what you want to talk about, eh?
    TANSTAAFL

    Liberal turned conservative David Mamet famously said: In order to continue advancing their illogical arguments modern liberals have to pretend not to know things…

  9. #9
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    43,007

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    True, it could also mean that the candidate doesn't have a clue.
    shrug...

    Bought...not bought...neither guarantee that a candidate has a clue.
    TANSTAAFL

    Liberal turned conservative David Mamet famously said: In order to continue advancing their illogical arguments modern liberals have to pretend not to know things…

  10. #10

    Re: Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    From The Globe and Mail


    Is Washington experience no longer relevant in the U.S. presidential race?

    Gerald Ford had more of it than Jimmy Carter. George H.W. Bush had more of it than Ronald Reagan. Al Gore had more of it than George W. Bush. Richard Nixon had more of it than John F. Kennedy. And Donald Trump had none of it at all.

    But the question is this: Does Washington experience – or other political experience – really matter, in seeking the American presidency or in actually being the American President?

    It is an academic question – scholars have been debating this for more than a century – but it is also a practical one, particularly relevant as nearly two dozen Democrats, many of them with little or even no traditional experience, seek to defeat an incumbent President who himself had no traditional political experience. The latest is the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who officially launched his campaign on Sunday. Pete Buttigieg has already attained zeitgeist status with his fresh face and folksy manner that overshadow his inexperience at 37 years old.

    The 2020 Democratic field is unusually weak in traditional presidential preparation. Seven of the party’s White House hopefuls have been on Capitol Hill only six years. One of them, Kamala Harris, has been in the Senate only two years. Two of them have never served in an office higher than mayor. Two of them – one an entrepreneur, the other the author of spiritual and self-help books – have no political experience at all. And one of them with enormous experience – Jay Inslee, with 15 years in the House of Representatives and six as governor of Washington State – isn’t considered a major contender.

    COMMENT:-

    It appears to me that the real question to be asked is "Is ANY experience still relevant in the U.S. presidential race, or is the only relevant factor 'electability'?".

    What does it seem like to you?
    Conventional wisdom was typically governor's experience translated as the best experience for presidents. It is basically the same job on a smaller stage.

    However i think there is an appetite for people outside of washington to lead coming from both parties. I think there is a growing sentiment that france experienced leading up to the french revolution.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •