Barack Obama has more experience than the entire GOP field combined

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Obama still has NO experience after three years. It's his string pullers (puppet masters) who is calling the shots. Obama is just a puppet...They give him a script, they pull the strings to his mouth. he reads.. Why do you think he is NEVER at the White house..he's always somewhere other than his JOB.

Other than that. the man is a total FAILURE and fraud, and the people are realizing it...thankfully

This type of nonsense is why Obama will win by a landslide next November

Now THAT'S funny !! Thanks for the small stab at humor.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Liberals are desperate. All of these threads smacking NEWT around and acting like Romney is the better candidate are horseshit. Liberals are pissing their panties over Newt and doing their best to rewrite history claiming President Dumbass is some kind of a hero. IT WON'T WORK. 2012 is just around the corner.. the liberal destruction of capitalism is just about over.

 

[Vel]

By history

Only one president has been elected whose only experience was a Congressman.........Garfield in 1880

Doesn't bode well for Newt, Bachmann or Paul

doesn't matter, according to you. The ONLY experience that matters you said, was executive experience at the federal level.

In any case, you left off a few names...

Abe Lincoln served a single congressional term.
James Madison, 4 terms in congress.
Bush the 1st, 2 congressional terms.
(I did not count Ford, as he was made President upon Nixon resigning, and was not 'elected'.

In Abe Lincolns case, you are correct. He moved from the Illinois State House to the White House.

James Madison was Secretary of State under Jefferson which is in the Executive Branch

As everyone knows, Daddy Bush was Reagans Vice President, again in the executive branch

I never said a Congressman can't become president. I said it is a stepping stone to other offices which lead to President

James Garfield is the only Congressman elected Presisent. Gerald Ford was a Congressman, served a short time as Vice President and was appointed President. He was never elected

And UNLIKE Obama, all of the aforementioned were able to turn out a budget. 3+ years and waiting for RW's uber-experienced leader to figure out how to do the most basic executive job.
As to congressional experience not being enough for the job, RW should have told that to the nation's founders as the chain of leadership runs...president...vice president..and...ta dum...speaker of the house.

 

[rightwinger]

Historically, the experience that has had the most influence with the voters are:

1. President
2. Vice President
3. Governor
4. General
5. Senator
6. Congressman

The voters have never elected anyone whose primary experience was running a business. Likewise, they have not given Congressmen much credit

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No...but performing public service is a good way to get into politics. In Obamas case it led to 8 years as an Illinois State Senate before he was elected US Senator and then President

Much more experience than any of the Republicans

If that were the measuring stick for a good POTUS he should be doing MUCH better than he is.... instead he stinks on ice!

Actually Obama has been quite good...

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 7 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 20 straight months of private sector job growth, increased America's household wealth by $9 trillion dollars, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

And now with the automatic spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, Obama has solved the deficit problem as well.

I think you better lie down, you seem to be drinking the kool aid just a bit too fast.

You haven't proven any job growth, which is why the underemployment rate has increased drastically since he took office. Hard to boast job figures when those who have lost their jobs aren't able to get back all of their lost revenue, so they settle for part time work or maybe two just to get by. Which is why forclosures have been on the rise for the last 3 months, but keep talking "job numbers" you might get a few uneducated suckers to actually believe you.

 

[rightwinger]

doesn't matter, according to you. The ONLY experience that matters you said, was executive experience at the federal level.

In any case, you left off a few names...

Abe Lincoln served a single congressional term.
James Madison, 4 terms in congress.
Bush the 1st, 2 congressional terms.
(I did not count Ford, as he was made President upon Nixon resigning, and was not 'elected'.

In Abe Lincolns case, you are correct. He moved from the Illinois State House to the White House.

James Madison was Secretary of State under Jefferson which is in the Executive Branch

As everyone knows, Daddy Bush was Reagans Vice President, again in the executive branch

I never said a Congressman can't become president. I said it is a stepping stone to other offices which lead to President

James Garfield is the only Congressman elected Presisent. Gerald Ford was a Congressman, served a short time as Vice President and was appointed President. He was never elected

And UNLIKE Obama, all of the aforementioned were able to turn out a budget. 3+ years and waiting for RW's uber-experienced leader to figure out how to do the most basic executive job.
As to congressional experience not being enough for the job, RW should have told that to the nation's founders as the chain of leadership runs...president...vice president..and...ta dum...speaker of the house.

That is the chain of secession in case of death. It has nothing to do with leadership power.

 

[Conservative]

Historically, the experience that has had the most influence with the voters are:

1. President
2. Vice President
3. Governor
4. General
5. Senator
6. Congressman

The voters have never elected anyone whose primary experience was running a business. Likewise, they have not given Congressmen much credit

according to you, 3,4,5 & 6 don't count, as they are not executive federal level positions.

 

[Vel]

In Abe Lincolns case, you are correct. He moved from the Illinois State House to the White House.

James Madison was Secretary of State under Jefferson which is in the Executive Branch

As everyone knows, Daddy Bush was Reagans Vice President, again in the executive branch

I never said a Congressman can't become president. I said it is a stepping stone to other offices which lead to President

James Garfield is the only Congressman elected Presisent. Gerald Ford was a Congressman, served a short time as Vice President and was appointed President. He was never elected

And UNLIKE Obama, all of the aforementioned were able to turn out a budget. 3+ years and waiting for RW's uber-experienced leader to figure out how to do the most basic executive job.
As to congressional experience not being enough for the job, RW should have told that to the nation's founders as the chain of leadership runs...president...vice president..and...ta dum...speaker of the house.

That is the chain of secession in case of death. It has nothing to do with leadership power.

But it's certainly quite telling in whom the founders considered would have the experience and ability to take over the job. I think I'll take Ben and Tom's opinion over yours. And please address why your guy can't handle a freaking budget just like the 43 guys that came before him. No leadership skills perhaps?

 

[rightwinger]

Historically, the experience that has had the most influence with the voters are:

1. President
2. Vice President
3. Governor
4. General
5. Senator
6. Congressman

The voters have never elected anyone whose primary experience was running a business. Likewise, they have not given Congressmen much credit

according to you, 3,4,5 & 6 don't count, as they are not executive federal level positions.

Can you show where I said they don't count?

What I said was experience in the Executive Branch has more weight with the voters. Do you have any historical data that proves otherwise?

 

[Trajan]

I am really shocked this BS thread has gone on this long.

the whole premise is BS.


the question should be (as we must accept that whomever gets ELECTED will after 3 years have 3 years EXEC, C in C experience ) who has as much experience OR MORE as Obama HAD when elected or nominated as the party choice.

his '4'years in the senate was a riot, even democrats know he was there and a participant maybe half the time, Reid explains and is quoted (paraphrased here) that obama had a gift and a year after his election to the senate Reid told him he could see he was bored and bigger things were possible, he could be president the stars could align etc etc .....Obama had to keep stepping up the ladder as he could not spend to long in one place and be seen as the lightweight he really is. He never ever gained any legislative experience , managed a committee etc etc .

So;

Newt- Speaker of the house, worked negotiated/with, compromised successfully with adversarial party in the WH, and and GOT THINGS done, like him or not, it is true.


Romney. Governor of a BLUE state and managed it pretty well. PLUS exec. business experience, turned around the Olympics which is probably harder than either......

and you van be sure the media will vet them to the inth degree and out each and every little morsel their hired 'extra' help can find.


Obama? effectively, and I use that term loosely 2 years in the senate,. state Illinois leg. whose time on office- day book, e mails and schedule are no longer public btw, voted present a record number of times, cut his teeth as a shit stirrer, that is using the velvet to convince folks on the lower scale of the economy, whom are always easily manipulated, that he could provide or effect change, or that is whatever he thought they would swallow, that would benefit them.

Oh and I once read that one of his own buddies somewhat reluctantly had to admit , there is not one thing left, even tangentially that speaks to Obamas past presence and/or 'help' be it as a community rabble rouser or state senator.


so yea lets see who would a reasonable person choose based solely on experience??

notice I left out his record in office ..

 

[Stephanie]

Liberals are desperate. All of these threads smacking NEWT around and acting like Romney is the better candidate are horseshit. Liberals are pissing their panties over Newt and doing their best to rewrite history claiming President Dumbass is some kind of a hero. IT WON'T WORK. 2012 is just around the corner.. the liberal destruction of capitalism is just about over.

you notice that too..sorta funny to watch. but they cling onto that Hope and just dropped the change..

 

[007]

THIS THREAD IS A JOKE.

End of story.

 

[Vel]

I am really shocked this BS thread has gone on this long.

the whole premise is BS.


the question should be (as we must accept that whomever gets ELECTED will after 3 years have 3 years EXEC, C in C experience ) who has as much experience OR MORE as Obama HAD when elected or nominated as the party choice.

his '4'years in the senate was a riot, even democrats know he was there and a participant maybe half the time, Reid explains and is quoted (paraphrased here) that obama had a gift and a year after his election to the senate Reid told him he could see he was bored and bigger things were possible, he could be president the stars could align etc etc .....Obama had to keep stepping up the ladder as he could not spend to long in one place and be seen as the lightweight he really is. He never ever gained any legislative experience , managed a committee etc etc .

So;

Newt- Speaker of the house, worked negotiated/with, compromised successfully with adversarial party in the WH, and and GOT THINGS done, like him or not, it is true.


Romney. Governor of a BLUE state and managed it pretty well. PLUS exec. business experience, turned around the Olympics which is probably harder than either......

and you van be sure the media will vet them to the inth degree and out each and every little morsel their hired 'extra' help can find.


Obama? effectively, and I use that term loosely 2 years in the senate,. state Illinois leg. whose time on office- day book, e mails and schedule are no longer public btw, voted present a record number of times, cut his teeth as a shit stirrer, that is using the velvet to convince folks on the lower scale of the economy, whom are always easily manipulated, that he could provide or effect change, or that is whatever he thought they would swallow, that would benefit them.

Oh and I once read that one of his own buddies somewhat reluctantly had to admit , there is not one thing left, even tangentially that speaks to Obamas past presence and/or 'help' be it as a community rabble rouser or state senator.


so yea lets see who would a reasonable choose based solely on experience??

notice I left out his record in office ..

What Romney and Newt displayed are called LEADERSHIP SKILLS, just in case Rightwinger needs to know the terminology. After all, it's not as if he'll find it in his own chosen candidate.

 

[rightwinger]

I am really shocked this BS thread has gone on this long.

the whole premise is BS.


the question should be (as we must accept that whomever gets ELECTED will after 3 years have 3 years EXEC, C in C experience ) who has as much experience OR MORE as Obama HAD when elected or nominated as the party choice.

his '4'years in the senate was a riot, even democrats know he was there and a participant maybe half the time, Reid explains and is quoted (paraphrased here) that obama had a gift and a year after his election to the senate Reid told him he could see he was bored and bigger things were possible, he could be president the stars could align etc etc .....Obama had to keep stepping up the ladder as he could not spend to long in one place and be seen as the lightweight he really is. He never ever gained any legislative experience , managed a committee etc etc .

So;

Newt- Speaker of the house, worked negotiated/with, compromised successfully with adversarial party in the WH, and and GOT THINGS done, like him or not, it is true.


Romney. Governor of a BLUE state and managed it pretty well. PLUS exec. business experience, turned around the Olympics which is probably harder than either......

and you van be sure the media will vet them to the inth degree and out each and every little morsel their hired 'extra' help can find.


Obama? effectively, and I use that term loosely 2 years in the senate,. state Illinois leg. whose time on office- day book, e mails and schedule are no longer public btw, voted present a record number of times, cut his teeth as a shit stirrer, that is using the velvet to convince folks on the lower scale of the economy, whom are always easily manipulated, that he could provide or effect change, or that is whatever he thought they would swallow, that would benefit them.

Oh and I once read that one of his own buddies somewhat reluctantly had to admit , there is not one thing left, even tangentially that speaks to Obamas past presence and/or 'help' be it as a community rabble rouser or state senator.


so yea lets see who would a reasonable choose based solely on experience??

notice I left out his record in office ..

When Obama was elected in 2008, he was not the most experienced candidate. Everyone has acknowledged that. The American people were aware of his experience and voted for Obama over a more experienced Senator

Fast forward to 2012.....Obama is now the most experienced candidate running for President. Both Romney and Gingrich have more experience than the 2008 Obama..........but they do not have more experience than the 2012 Obama

 

[Stephanie]

I am really shocked this BS thread has gone on this long.

the whole premise is BS.


the question should be (as we must accept that whomever gets ELECTED will after 3 years have 3 years EXEC, C in C experience ) who has as much experience OR MORE as Obama HAD when elected or nominated as the party choice.

his '4'years in the senate was a riot, even democrats know he was there and a participant maybe half the time, Reid explains and is quoted (paraphrased here) that obama had a gift and a year after his election to the senate Reid told him he could see he was bored and bigger things were possible, he could be president the stars could align etc etc .....Obama had to keep stepping up the ladder as he could not spend to long in one place and be seen as the lightweight he really is. He never ever gained any legislative experience , managed a committee etc etc .

So;

Newt- Speaker of the house, worked negotiated/with, compromised successfully with adversarial party in the WH, and and GOT THINGS done, like him or not, it is true.


Romney. Governor of a BLUE state and managed it pretty well. PLUS exec. business experience, turned around the Olympics which is probably harder than either......

and you van be sure the media will vet them to the inth degree and out each and every little morsel their hired 'extra' help can find.


Obama? effectively, and I use that term loosely 2 years in the senate,. state Illinois leg. whose time on office- day book, e mails and schedule are no longer public btw, voted present a record number of times, cut his teeth as a shit stirrer, that is using the velvet to convince folks on the lower scale of the economy, whom are always easily manipulated, that he could provide or effect change, or that is whatever he thought they would swallow, that would benefit them.

Oh and I once read that one of his own buddies somewhat reluctantly had to admit , there is not one thing left, even tangentially that speaks to Obamas past presence and/or 'help' be it as a community rabble rouser or state senator.


so yea lets see who would a reasonable choose based solely on experience??

notice I left out his record in office ..

When Obama was elected in 2008, he was not the most experienced candidate. Everyone has acknowledged that. The American people were aware of his experience and voted for Obama over a more experienced Senator

Fast forward to 2012.....Obama is now the most experienced candidate running for President. Both Romney and Gingrich have more experience than the 2008 Obama..........but they do not have more experience than the 2012 Obama

The first part of you post is true. sadly
But fast forward to TODAY. He's sitting at 40% approval and it ain't looking good no matter how much you want to say he has more experience than the rest..
Being viewed as a failed President in just three years doesn't bode well for Reelections.
ask Jimma Carter about that.

 

[Trajan]

I am really shocked this BS thread has gone on this long.

the whole premise is BS.


the question should be (as we must accept that whomever gets ELECTED will after 3 years have 3 years EXEC, C in C experience ) who has as much experience OR MORE as Obama HAD when elected or nominated as the party choice.

his '4'years in the senate was a riot, even democrats know he was there and a participant maybe half the time, Reid explains and is quoted (paraphrased here) that obama had a gift and a year after his election to the senate Reid told him he could see he was bored and bigger things were possible, he could be president the stars could align etc etc .....Obama had to keep stepping up the ladder as he could not spend to long in one place and be seen as the lightweight he really is. He never ever gained any legislative experience , managed a committee etc etc .

So;

Newt- Speaker of the house, worked negotiated/with, compromised successfully with adversarial party in the WH, and and GOT THINGS done, like him or not, it is true.


Romney. Governor of a BLUE state and managed it pretty well. PLUS exec. business experience, turned around the Olympics which is probably harder than either......

and you van be sure the media will vet them to the inth degree and out each and every little morsel their hired 'extra' help can find.


Obama? effectively, and I use that term loosely 2 years in the senate,. state Illinois leg. whose time on office- day book, e mails and schedule are no longer public btw, voted present a record number of times, cut his teeth as a shit stirrer, that is using the velvet to convince folks on the lower scale of the economy, whom are always easily manipulated, that he could provide or effect change, or that is whatever he thought they would swallow, that would benefit them.

Oh and I once read that one of his own buddies somewhat reluctantly had to admit , there is not one thing left, even tangentially that speaks to Obamas past presence and/or 'help' be it as a community rabble rouser or state senator.


so yea lets see who would a reasonable choose based solely on experience??

notice I left out his record in office ..

When Obama was elected in 2008, he was not the most experienced candidate. Everyone has acknowledged that. The American people were aware of his experience and voted for Obama over a more experienced Senator

Fast forward to 2012.....Obama is now the most experienced candidate running for President. Both Romney and Gingrich have more experience than the 2008 Obama..........but they do not have more experience than the 2012 Obama

he was more experienced than John McCain? they were both senators....how in the frug was that possible?

dude, stop drinking now, first step admit your posts are unmanageable .


change of direction attempt and poorly crafted slight of hand noted. don't make me bust out the analogy killer , ok? just go sleep it off ole boy.

 

[rightwinger]

I am really shocked this BS thread has gone on this long.

the whole premise is BS.


the question should be (as we must accept that whomever gets ELECTED will after 3 years have 3 years EXEC, C in C experience ) who has as much experience OR MORE as Obama HAD when elected or nominated as the party choice.

his '4'years in the senate was a riot, even democrats know he was there and a participant maybe half the time, Reid explains and is quoted (paraphrased here) that obama had a gift and a year after his election to the senate Reid told him he could see he was bored and bigger things were possible, he could be president the stars could align etc etc .....Obama had to keep stepping up the ladder as he could not spend to long in one place and be seen as the lightweight he really is. He never ever gained any legislative experience , managed a committee etc etc .

So;

Newt- Speaker of the house, worked negotiated/with, compromised successfully with adversarial party in the WH, and and GOT THINGS done, like him or not, it is true.


Romney. Governor of a BLUE state and managed it pretty well. PLUS exec. business experience, turned around the Olympics which is probably harder than either......

and you van be sure the media will vet them to the inth degree and out each and every little morsel their hired 'extra' help can find.


Obama? effectively, and I use that term loosely 2 years in the senate,. state Illinois leg. whose time on office- day book, e mails and schedule are no longer public btw, voted present a record number of times, cut his teeth as a shit stirrer, that is using the velvet to convince folks on the lower scale of the economy, whom are always easily manipulated, that he could provide or effect change, or that is whatever he thought they would swallow, that would benefit them.

Oh and I once read that one of his own buddies somewhat reluctantly had to admit , there is not one thing left, even tangentially that speaks to Obamas past presence and/or 'help' be it as a community rabble rouser or state senator.


so yea lets see who would a reasonable choose based solely on experience??

notice I left out his record in office ..

When Obama was elected in 2008, he was not the most experienced candidate. Everyone has acknowledged that. The American people were aware of his experience and voted for Obama over a more experienced Senator

Fast forward to 2012.....Obama is now the most experienced candidate running for President. Both Romney and Gingrich have more experience than the 2008 Obama..........but they do not have more experience than the 2012 Obama

he was more experienced than John McCain? they were both senators....how in the frug was that possible?

dude, stop drinking now, first step admit your posts are unmanageable .


change of direction attempt and poorly crafted slight of hand noted. don't make me bust out the analogy killer , ok? just go sleep it off ole boy.

Which part of "voted for Obama over a more experienced Senator" went over your head?

 

[Conservative]

When Obama was elected in 2008, he was not the most experienced candidate. Everyone has acknowledged that. The American people were aware of his experience and voted for Obama over a more experienced Senator

Fast forward to 2012.....Obama is now the most experienced candidate running for President. Both Romney and Gingrich have more experience than the 2008 Obama..........but they do not have more experience than the 2012 Obama

again, the only experience you are counting is executive federal. It's disingenuous of you at best, hypocritical of you at worst.

I highly doubt you had this opinion in 2008 when Obama ran. In fact, I've asked you several times, and you dodge, move goalposts, etc. to avoid answering the question.

WHY, is executive federal level experience the most important now, when ti was not in 2008? Other than the fact that now Obama has a few years of it, what has changed?

Nothing. It's just you being a partisan douche.

 

[Stephanie]

Which part of "voted for Obama over a more experienced Senator" went over your head?

yeah yeah..THEY DID fall for the Obama song and dance.

But I don't believe the people are going to fall for that again in 2012. at least according to the polls today.

thank gawd

It's going to take a lot to repair the damage this administration has inflicted on us.

 

[rightwinger]

When Obama was elected in 2008, he was not the most experienced candidate. Everyone has acknowledged that. The American people were aware of his experience and voted for Obama over a more experienced Senator

Fast forward to 2012.....Obama is now the most experienced candidate running for President. Both Romney and Gingrich have more experience than the 2008 Obama..........but they do not have more experience than the 2012 Obama

again, the only experience you are counting is executive federal. It's disingenuous of you at best, hypocritical of you at worst.

I highly doubt you had this opinion in 2008 when Obama ran. In fact, I've asked you several times, and you dodge, move goalposts, etc. to avoid answering the question.

WHY, is executive federal level experience the most important now, when ti was not in 2008? Other than the fact that now Obama has a few years of it, what has changed?

Nothing. It's just you being a partisan douche.

When did I say the only experience that counts is executive federal? If you read my OP, I listed each candidates service in Congress and as Governors.

What I did point out is that the American voter has historically given more weight to those with Presidential or Vice Presidential experience. They have also given Congressional experience less weight than Experience in the Executive branch, governors of states and military.

In 2008, none of the candidates had Executive Branch experience unless you count being a first lady.

That is what has changed