that the current crop of Presidential candidates are "under qualified" when among them you have successful Governors (Romney, Richardson, Huckabee), and long standing members of Congress (Biden, Kucinich, McCain) among others?
George Bush was a 1 1/2 term Governor with a history of being a "less than successful" businessman. Are these candidates any less qualified than he was?
2007-08-15 09:13:25 · 21 answers · asked by Mitchell . 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's mostly Conservatives taking shots at Hillary and Obama that are pulling the "under qualified" card.
2007-08-15 09:16:30 · answer #1 · answered by pip 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The democratic candidates are the ones who are under qualified. Barack Obama has only been in public office for 8 or so years. Being a Jr. Senator and a senator in the state does not mean you know how to effectively run a government. Same with Hillary. Neither of these two have enough experience to run McDonald's in my opinion.
Romney, Richardson, and Huckabee all ran a state and are qualified. However only Romney has a chance of actually getting into the white house. Being in congress does not mean you know how to run a county. Biden and Kucinich both have run unsuccessful campaigns in the past and Kucinich is a nut job in most people's eyes. McCain is too polarizing these days because he flip flops on issues. One day he wants illegal immigration and now he doesn't. Which is it John?
2007-08-15 16:24:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Serving in a governmental capacity does not automatically make you qualified to be president. If anything, the longer you have been in gov't, the less likely it is you know anything about the common people. These candidates have had their lives handled on the proverbial silver platter for so long that they don't know how the real world operates. Their wages are in the top 10% (or higher) of the nation. They do not pay for anything (our taxes do). ALL of their insurance (health, life, etc.) is taken care of - pernmanently. They receive a pension for the rest of their lives that is often the same as the wages they received while still serving - this keeps them out of the realm of the common citizen.
And let's not forget this undeniable fact: they have been bought and paid for by big business (federal level, mostly, but some state jobs as well). The gov't is elected by the populace but it is operated with the best interest of big business in mind. Why? Because candidates owe big corporation big tiem for giving them the $$$$ to get elected in the first place.
This is non-partisan, by the way. Both parties are guilty.
2007-08-15 16:24:12 · answer #3 · answered by thinking-guru 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People always say that every presidential election, especially when no incumbent is running. You're right -- the crop we have now certainly have qualified individuals. To me, though, the best choice can't even run. He's the guy who played "The Terminator" in movies some years ago. But I'm going to support Hillary, because she's far ahead of the other Democrat candidates, and I much prefer her over any of the Republican candidates.
2007-08-15 16:22:26 · answer #4 · answered by Stephen L 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree I think you some of the more highly qualified candidates we have seen in years on the Republican side. And even if I do not like to admit it some very good (qualified) ones on the democrats side as well. Should make for a very close and interesting election.
2007-08-15 16:18:16 · answer #5 · answered by Jason J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So fare from both parties I have heard nothing but business as always. The people that would make a good leaders and get our country going in the right direction won't run. I urge you young people to get out and vote.
2007-08-15 16:25:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
you included all the candidates that are doomed to lose and in fact used the names of all individuals who aren't even going to win their party's nomination. Bush was a born loser, ie texas rangers, his failed oil business his daddy hooked him up with, the iraq war, finding bin ladin etc. but he was the best the repubes had in 00 and in fact stole the election (gore conceded the recount). Kerry was a joke and lost in 04 and you can thank the dems for allowing Bush to run practically unchallenged.
2007-08-15 16:20:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
None of the candidates you mention have much of a chance at getting the nomination.
2007-08-15 16:20:56 · answer #8 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They meet all of the qualifications: over age 35 and born in the USA.
2007-08-15 16:16:09 · answer #9 · answered by regerugged 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I have generally only head unqualified with regards to Obama and Clinton. It is an easy shot, When you are unable to attack a person's moral standing, their platform or their ideas you go straight for their gender, race, or percieved ability.
2007-08-15 16:18:44 · answer #10 · answered by smedrik 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋