"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way, by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman
I have been listening to reasons why some would not vote for Barack Obama and one mentioned often is lack of experience. When Bush Jr ran for office the very same people excused his lack of experience claiming he would select good smart people who would give him sound advice. So why isn't BO given the same leeway? He is certainly a great deal smarter than W, has done a great deal more, and he too will have good smart people to consult with, so ask yourself why is it a negative in one case and not the other? Is it partisanship or racism?
"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls
President Bush had executive experience both with an oil company and with a ball team. He learned the hard way what is entailed in management, what it is to succeed, and what it is to fail. Despite attempts to besmirch his military record, he did earn his wings in the Texas Air National Guard, was honorably discharged from that service, and thereby obtained some hands on experience in how the military functions. He served as quite popular and successful governor of the State of Texas with an economy second in the nation and fifteenth largest in the world. These are pretty impressive qualifications for President of the United States. And in both jobs he did surround himself with highly qualified and capable people despite making a few abysmally bad appointments. Some dubious or disastrous or unfortunate appointments have been obvious in EVERY administration, however, so there is nothing unusual about that.
President Bush has been a disappointment to many of us in several ways, but his administration has also competently accomplished some good stuff and I suspect historians will be much kinder to him than has been his press and approval ratings. Time will tell about that.
Now for Barack Obama: he is nice looking and personable. He was very briefly a law instructor. Then he was a 'community organizer' with ACORN, a quite shadowy and controversial group that is receiving scant scrutiny by the mainstream media despite the fact that this is a key component of his resume and is being flouted (by Clark and others) as a qualification to be President. I suspect Obama is not at all interested in having that relationship closely scrutinized. Then he served some time in the Illinois State Legislature with a record of pushing through little legislation or voting on much of anything before being elected to the U.S. Senate where for three years now he has not been instrumental in pushing through any significant legislation, where he has recorded numerous non votes, and where he has been mostly absent two of the three years while he runs for President.
So inexperienced? Absolutely moreso than anybody else who has had a good chance to be elected President.
As for depending on others for expertise the candidate lacks, Obama's track record has been liberally checkered with some extremely dubious and controversial characters that he now disavows any knowledge of their shady dealings or 'they aren't the person that he knew then', yadda yadda. There is no reason to suspect that he will choose better friends and associates as President. He has to pay back those who have brought him to this point.
Couple all that with the fact that he changes his mind and/or position on ANYTHING depending on how he thinks the political winds are blowing plus he has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.
And all THAT is why I won't be voting for Barack Obama, and I suspect THAT is why many others will choose not to vote for him as well.
--and wish you a Happy 4th.
