Compare for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Why OK for one and not the other??
2007-06-27 22:02:02 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Dizz: right you are!
However I was referring to the fact that many people say he isn't experienced enough.
I wish more people would have brought this arguement to the table when Bush ran in '99!!!
2007-06-27 22:18:18 · update #1
Not sure how you measure experience.
Being governor of a large state is better experience for managing the executive branch than casting votes in the Senate.
What does a governor manage? A state government.
What does a Senator manage? A staff?
2007-06-27 23:38:05 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In 2000 people didn't think foreign policy mattered and those who were concerned about Bush's lack of experience in foreign policy thought that he had learned from and would consult with his father. His promise to appoint Colin Powell Secretary of state and selection of vice precedent reinforced that view.
Most people now think foreign policies matters a lot and we need someone who can repair the damage that Bush has done to our standing in the world. We need someone who knows a lot more about the world than GWB did. Better than Bush is not good enough.
2007-06-27 22:50:57 · answer #2 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is no more than the Reps trying to discredit anyone that opposes their agendas. I believe this race will be one of the roughest we've ever experienced regardless of the participants. Until we can vote out all this group of charlatans who've haunted Washington and get some fresh ideas and progressive thought that actually express the desire of the people, we can expect more of the same.
2007-06-27 22:46:22 · answer #3 · answered by Don W 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
GWB had the Republican propaganda machine behind him, that's why his C level MBA and experience as a part time governor were considered adequate by most voters. The propaganda has already cemented attitudes and here's proof: Obama has more experience in public service than Romney and Fred Thompson (unless you count Thompson's 19 years as a lobbyist as "public service", I don't). But these guys aren't characterized as inexperienced. And why don't we hear about Obama's experience as a constitutional law professor? Same reason, the Republican repetition machine says that Obama "lacks experience". Yet we were well aware the George Bush had an MBA, and we were told over and over that meant he would run the executive branch efficiently, like a business!
2007-06-27 22:23:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I would have voted for Al Bundy from "Married With Children" over Kerry or Gore.
Thats why it didn't matter for Bush.
Give us some decent people on the ballots instead of the morons and then we won't be voting for the least appalling choice.
2007-06-27 22:06:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush ran one of the largest states in the country.
Obama has done nothing in the way of running anything. His elected career he was only one vote in a body. That hardly compares.
2007-06-27 22:43:06 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Westhill you are right - Bush has run the administration a lot like the businesses he ran into bankruptcy before entering politics.
2007-06-27 22:32:49 · answer #7 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Good point but given Bush's performance I don't think Obama will be using this fact in his campaign...
2007-06-27 22:12:20 · answer #8 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Obama has also more education than GWB.
2007-07-01 13:44:18 · answer #9 · answered by johnfarber2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
keep dreaming..if he didn't give one speech at the Democratic convention.. he'd be back in Hawaii working at a hotel
2007-06-27 22:32:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋