Ok, let's talk about Qualifications and Experience (McCain version

[skylndrftr]

This needs its own thread.I've been asking McCain supporters about his qualifications and experience, here and on other forums. The vast majority of them know virtually nothing about McCain. Their responses typically fall into a few categories.

1.) Bush was an great President.

2.) Obama is young.

In the end, 3.) they declare that experience and not qualifications are necessary for a President.

So, let's see if anyone actually thinks he's qualified. Here are the rules:

!.) Bush isn't running so lets not talk about him. Saying Obama isn't (blank) is not an argument for McCain qualifications.

2.) Saying Obama is young isn't an argument for McCain's qualifications

3.) If you think the next President should be unqualified, save us all some time and just say so.

Otherwise, I'd love to hear McCain's qualifications for the job. I'd love to hear just what McCain's supporters are thinking. Keep in mind that being over 35, a non-felon, and breathing are eligibility requirements, not qualifications.

[/goofing on 96Qowner]

Can I add, the SCOTUS has never addressed what exactly a 'natural born citizen' is and in theory either or both of these candidates could be tossed out by the whim of the court? McCain wasn't born in the US boundaries and Obama had only one Citizen parent...yea its unlikely but wierder things have happened

[rn79870]

It's interesting that no McCain supporters have stepped up and pointed out his strengths. Perhaps Brian would like to field this in view of his recent conversion. Anyone?

[AZhitman]

It's interesting that no McCain supporters have stepped up and pointed out his strengths in THIS thread. I didn't read the others. I have a lot to say. By the way, unjustified war is expensive and bad.

Fixed those spelling errors for ya Boss.

[rn79870]

You're coloring outside the lines again Greg.

[skylndrftr]

bump?

[smockers83]

Give them a chance, the Obama thread took awhile to get going as well.

[skylndrftr]

You could start Smockers

[smockers83]

I could. For the record I am undecided, but I have been Republican and conservative in the past so it may seem I lean that way out of nature, but I am truly considering both candidates.

Well, the qualifications for McCain are the same for Obama...look up the Constitution. Experiences on the other hand are obviously different. A military career, to me, is not a qualification, requirement, or anything else. It is experience in the aspect of war, one of the duties of the president as commander-in-chief. A good understanding of war is or can be a good thing as president. Does it make McCain an automatic front runner in front of Obama? Definitely not.

McCain has a lot of experience working in Washington and I guess knows how Washington works. He has much more experience in Washington than Obama. Again, does this make him better? Not necessarily. Being in Washington for too long, you get caught up in what goes on there...corruption, waste, back room deals, etc. I'm not saying McCain is corrupted or wasteful, just saying. In the movie Gladiator (one of my favorites) when the emperor asks Maximus to be the new emperor and give Rome back to the people (aka the Senate), Maximus says he doesn't know Rome's politics and the emperor points out Maximus hasn't been corrupted by its politics. His experiences while in DC I'm not particularly sure of besides he's been a straight talker, sometimes goes against his party, etc etc. Being able to go against your party, to me, means you can bridge the gap of partisan politics and do what you feel is the right thing. That's an important quality (and now I'm bringing a 3rd dimension to this).

That's enough from me for now--my head hurts.

[skylndrftr]

Those aren't qualifications...simple question why can't the McCain supporters just answer it?

[OriginalWheelman]

Those aren't qualifications...simple question why can't the McCain supporters just answer it?

What do you mean those aren't qualifications? How is 23 years military experience not a qualification? How is 26 years political experience not a qualification? Have you ever hired people? Experience is the single most important thing. Experience wins over degrees.

[smockers83]

You asked for qualifications and experience. The explicit qualifications are in the Constitution, must I list those? People mistakenly use the terms qualifications and experience interchangeably. A job description has a list of qualifications and experiences required for the job. Qualifications can be the likes of level of education completed, licenses acquired, previously-held positions, etc. Then they require a certain amount of experience, like so many years in such and such industry, working with customers on a personal basis, previously-held positions goes here too, among other things. Each person brings a different experience to the table and different levels of experience. To have an explicit level of experience achieved to be president is next to impossible and just not right. When I reach the ripe age of 35, I meet the qualifications to be Mr. President and so does everyone else who's lived in the US since they were 21 given that they're a natural-born citizen.

[96Qowner]

Oh for Pete's sake. McCain's qualifications?????

Is there REALLY some question about whether he's qualified to be President? Or maybe you're just ticked off that Obama has virtually none to speak of.

McCain has been a Senator from Arizona since 1987, 21 years now. Before that, he was an Arizona Representative for 4 years. Before that, he spent 22 years in the military. Before that, he grew up under the tutelage of his Admiral father and his Admiral grandfather. In 1977, as a Captain, he was appointed as the Navy's liaison to the Senate, meaning he's been involved in the Federal Legislative branch for 31 years now.

All through the 1990s, he annoyed fellow Republicans by refusing to "go along". He has always been his own man and fought his own battles. He is not a "Party Man" and has never been. He's joined with powerful Democratic politicians in order to get important legislation passed, including Sen. John Kerry on normalizing relations with Vietnam, Sen. Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, Sen. Ted Kennedy on immigration reform, Sen. Joe Lieberman on global warming, and the "Gang of 14" Senators to broker a compromise on President Bush's judicial nominations.

In 1996, he was seriously considered as a Presidential candidate, but Bob Dole won the nomination (too bad for everyone). In 1997 he was named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential Americans. In 2000, he made a serious run for the Presidency, but lost the nomination to Bush (again, too bad for everyone).

He has been past chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which he was first appointed to in 1987, the Commerce Committee, and Indian Affairs Committee.

In his career, he has visited with leaders and influential decision makers in more than 70 different countries worldwide. For instance, he met Angela Merkel at a Munich conference several years ago before she became German chancellor. In summer 2004, McCain met at a restaurant with Viktor Yushchenko before the Orange Revolution when he was elected Ukrainian president. He has already met with Prime Minister Brown of Britain and President Sarkozy of France for the third time. He met and corresponded with Mr. Sarkozy both before and after he was elected.

If you do some honest Googling yourself, you will find an amazing list of powerful people who will vouch for him, spanning 25 years. Few Presidents over the past 50 years have had his qualifications.

[96Qowner]

You asked for qualifications and experience. The explicit qualifications are in the Constitution, must I list those? People mistakenly use the terms qualifications and experience interchangeably.

Ahem, let's call being 35 and alive eligibility requirements, eh? They're hardly qualifications or experience. Most of us are "qualified" by your definition - that's meaningless.

[rn79870]

But that is the "constitutional" requirement for qualification for the presidency. I suppose the founding fathers saw the catch 22 in requiring other experience. Perhaps that's why there is no "must have served...." necessary. Food for thought.

[rn79870]

Oh for Pete's sake. McCain's qualifications?????

Is there REALLY some question about whether he's qualified to be President? Or maybe you're just ticked off that Obama has virtually none to speak of.

McCain has been a Senator from Arizona since 1987, 21 years now. Before that, he was an Arizona Representative for 4 years. Before that, he spent 22 years in the military.

2 things. Serving 22 years adds exactally what to the skills needed as president? It seems more likely that the last 8 years of experience he has gained is exactally the type of experience we don't want or need. Maybe that's what everyone means by "change." Out with the old and broken, in with the new.

Lastly, I will never accept that military service is an asset to a president. If it was, it would be limited to someone with Colin Powels experience. Perhaps the "kill them all and let god sort them out" philosophy of a hawk is more "military" than we want leading our country after the mess of Iraq.

[96Qowner]

Heheh, It's so very clear now that you have a closed mind and are not interested in debate.

To say that 22 years of experience is meaningless is just (pardon me) idiotic. To say that being 35 and alive qualifies you to be President is idiotic (again, apologies).

Don' know what else to say to you .... *shrug*

[rn79870]

... To say that being 35 and alive qualifies you to be President is idiotic (again, apologies).

Don' know what else to say to you .... *shrug*

I was referring to the constitutional requirements for the office. If you feel that they are idiotic, then so be it.

To say that 22 years of experience is meaningless is just (pardon me) idiotic.

I'm referring to your blanket statement "22 years in the Seante is all the experience needed. It doesn't matter to you that at least 8 of those years have been as part of a machine that has failed? It doesn't matter to you that he has failed to assume a leadership role in the process? Great statement for experience.

Your "experience" argument is not really that different than asking a prisoner to become warden, after all, the prisoner has 22 years "prison" experience. My point being, not all experience is positive, needed or necessary experience. Am I little clearer now...?

[smockers83]

Q, you're completely missing the point here. Anyone who meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution is able to run for office. Those are the listed qualifications for the job. What you mentioned were all experience, not qualifications. And I'll even quote you to show you.

To say that 22 years of experience is meaningless...

(emphasis added)You first mentioned this as a qualification and then you mention it as experience. Now do you see what I'm saying? You're using both of these terms to say the same thing, however, experience is the correct term here. At the same time experience can be said to be a qualification, although I feel that since we're asking for both qualifications and experience, the two are needed to be separate, so we go to this definition of qualification:

a condition or standard that must be complied with.

Those conditions and standards are set forth in the Constitution.

As I said in this thread and the Obama version, people are mistakenly using qualifications and experience interchangeably.

When I reach 35, I am most certainly qualified to be president. Will I win? No. Why? Because I don't have the EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!

*edit* I guess I can't add emphasis in a quote. I tried to bold the word experience.

[smockers83]

It doesn't matter to you that at least 8 of those years have been as part of a machine that has failed? It doesn't matter to you that he has failed to assume a leadership role in the process?

Both sides are part of the machine that has failed. The Dems are just as much as responsible as the GOP for our current state. To only put one side, the GOP, in that machine is ludacris.

[rn79870]

Both sides are part of the machine that has failed. The Dems are just as much as responsible as the GOP for our current state. To only put one side, the GOP, in that machine is ludacris.

Well let's see who is piloting the ship of state...Then let's look and see which party was in power (until 1 1/2 years ago).Now, let's see who ran the ship of state aground...Yes, somebody has to accept the blame - otherwise we have to accept that things just happen and we have no control over them. So, let's blame the current administration, and the closer someone is to the core of that administration, the more they have to share in the blame. Or, as many like to say -the current administration is FTL.

So, if experience running our ship aground is a quality we want for our next leader, then choose one with that experience. If we want new ideas and fresh directions, choose one who didn't fail the previous time. You'll have to decide which is which.

[smockers83]

I guess we look at it differently. I look at it as though 2/3 of the government has failed--the executive and the legislature. Congress has a 9% approval rating (I think, that's what I remember) with the Dems in control...that's a complete failure, its worse than Bush's. If the Dems wanted to reign in the Bush administration, they certainly could have...checks and balances. The GOP and the administration was allowed to run rampantly doing whatever they wanted and each time the Dems folded and went along. They didn't have to destroy it, which was the impression that I usually got, just get it under control.

[C-Kwik]

Heheh, It's so very clear now that you have a closed mind and are not interested in debate.

One only needs to look at the Qualifications thread that you started about Obama to see how hypocritical this statement is. Not that I disagree with this statement, I just think that until you put forth the same effort in said thread to be open-minded and actually debate the topic, you really don't have much say about it in this one...

[96Qowner]

I hadn't noticed anyone debating the topic.

I have noticed people claiming that qualifications are meaningless, since you only have to be 35, alive, an American citizen, and not a felon, to be President.

So if the topic is mislabeled, by all means, relabel it to read "Qualifications are not Important".

Claiming that 22 years in the Senate does not qualify a candidate to be President is ... well, you already have heard what I think it is. Find me a President in the past 50 years who was more qualified than McCain.

Seriously, I can't help you guys if that's what you believe. In fact, I've asserted exactly that several times - Obama supporters don't care about qualifications.

QED, I guess, huh?

[96Qowner]

Hm, ok, in retrospect, I guess a guy could say that experience makes a candidate qualified. No sense in debating semantics is there?

Is anyone actually confused about what is meant by qualifications and experience? If so, my sympathies.

[smockers83]

You are mistaking me as an Obama supporter. Currently I find myself leaning more towards McCain, but I am not a supporter of either one yet.

Q, did you read my definition of qualification and the rest of my previous post on this subject? I never said qualifications aren't important, nor did anyone else. I have no idea where you got that from. You are making stuff up and putting words in our mouths. If someone is being closed-minded and shying from debate right now, its you. Let me run through this again. The qualifications are set forth in the Constitution--35 years old, natural-born citizen and lived in the country for 14 years at the time of election. Those are the requirements/qualifications for president. That means whoever wants to can run. Now this is where the experience comes into play. We have one person who meets the requirements but has no experience in government. We also have a person who meets the requirements but only has city council experience. Another person only with state legislative experience, another with governorship experience, another with federal experience, another with only lobbyist experience, another with military, federal government, state government experience, another with a very good education, state and federal, and international experience.

The topic shouldn't be relabled "Qualifications aren't Important." Its incorrectly labeled as qualifications and experience and should be relabeled as, "Who is more qualified based on experience," because obviously the last two examples I gave in my last paragraph are more qualified than others.

Those aren't qualifications...simple question why can't the McCain supporters just answer it?

Umm yeah, you're right, because those are experiences. Did you not read my post carefully?

But that is the "constitutional" requirement for qualification for the presidency. I suppose the founding fathers saw the catch 22 in requiring other experience. Perhaps that's why there is no "must have served...." necessary. Food for thought.

2 things. Serving 22 years adds exactally what to the skills needed as president? It seems more likely that the last 8 years of experience he has gained is exactally the type of experience we don't want or need.

What does serving 4 years in the Senate add to the skills needed to be president? McCain serving 20 years as Senator brings a lot of experience to the table. He's served under multiple presidents coming from both parties, he's seen what's worked, what hasn't, he's gone against his party and sided with powerful Democrats on issues in order to stand for what he believes is right. Bob, the problem you're having right now is you're looking along party lines only and not even half of McCain's experience in the Senate. Broaden your horizon a tad. Everyone who has served the past 8 years has the experience of failure.

[96Qowner]

Hm, so if someone were to claim that I'm not qualified to be President, they'd be ... wrong?

Ok, so be it. It just sounds really obtuse to me. Sorry for the impatience, but I never thought I'd actually be trying to convince someone that a President needs more qualifications than the barest minimum eligibility requirements.

So, to suit the Obama fanatics, we can just reduce it to Experience - fine with me, call it whatever you think it needs to be called. I thought the point was clear without all the philosophical parsing.

Anyone want to claim that McCain doesn't have enough Experience to be President? Hasn't spent enough time involved with the most important issues at the top levels of the Federal government? Hasn't met with enough world leaders? Is a narrow-minded partisan?

[smockers83]

They do need more than the bare minimum, I'm just saying since qualifications and experience were asked for, they should be separated into qualifications and experience, not all grouped into one, because that's what the original posters were looking for...what experience qualifies this person to be president more than the other. But enough of that, we agree that to be qualified to run you need much experience. Sorry for getting caught up in semantics.

[skylndrftr]

I'm tempted to start quoting Q back at himself but will resist for now.

Movign on from the qualifications versus experience versus yadda yadda arguement, what would make McCain a good president in regards to his personal history? What makes him somebody who should (not can) be president?

Has he ever held down a real job?Has he ever lived in the lower or middle class?Is he in touch with the people?

I honestly feel he's a man who has made his living and his life, in the military and then in politics. Thats a very different life experience than that which the people voting for him will live. I don't think he understands real people. I reiterate that his military experience, to me, is a nuetral if not negative factor. We have seen the last 8 years what a president who treats the government like he is the commander does (its not Bush bashing its a relevant observation). The military works in a heirarchy that is not only counterproductive in government, they are flat out dumb. He doesn't know the price of gas, he doesn't know how to use a computer. This guy should be our president?

Who cares if hes met the Chancellor of Germany. I've met the CEO of the company I work at, does that mean I am qualified to lead its competitor?

[96Qowner]

In other words, you're more comfortable with a President who has no real experience in government or the military, or in working alongside powerful people to accomplish mutual goals?

You're more comfortable with a President who doesn't really have any more experience than millions of average people - "real" people, as you call them?

That's Obama.

Typically, people are hired for their experience, as in the CEO you mention. I suppose if that company needed a new CEO, they'd rather hire you or me, who have NO experience leading a multi-million employee organization.

Or ... not.

As I said in the Obama thread, it always comes down to the idea that Experience just isn't important - that's the debate. Obama supporters never argue that Obama has experience - they argue that it isn't necessary.

Seems like a losing argument, to me.

Do you have an issue with McCain's experience? Anything you'd like to talk about? This "debate" about whether or not experience is important for a President holds no real interest for me. I think it IS important and am not likely to change my mind. Sorry.

[C-Kwik]

I hadn't noticed anyone debating the topic.

I have noticed people claiming that qualifications are meaningless, since you only have to be 35, alive, an American citizen, and not a felon, to be President.

How could they? It became an argument of semantics because you dismissed the responses by essentially saying "That's it?" I tried to guide you by explaining why that stance was weak and what you can do to strengthen your argument. And you responded with a sarcastic statement. So who was truly trying not to debate?