I am particularly referring to Barak Obama. Many people have stated that they are hesitant to vote for him due to his lack of experience, which is a fair reason. However, do you believe his lack of experience also equals less corruption in his politics?
2007-12-16 07:52:38 · 18 answers · asked by Liberal City 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not necessarily, and that is something people should keep in mind with Obama. He has tried to capitalize on his brief Senate tenure, meaning he hasn't had to take a position on many issues that could be criticized in hindsight. Sure he didn't vote for the Iraq war, but he still has a troubling history when it comes to the subject of Islam. And he still refuses to take a position on anything at all. Instead of granting press interviews that would give him a chance to articulate a vision, he goes on the Ellen Degenerous show and dances, or takes Oprah out on the campaign trail for 'star power.' We all saw where star power will get you when Kerry paraded Bruce Springsteen out on the stump with him. It's impossible to trust someone who won't stand up and tell you what he really believes. Barrack is probably a flash in the pan anyway, but if he wants to build a base on support for his ideas he could start letting all of us know what those ideas are.
2007-12-16 08:07:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Usually inexperience does equal innocence. Its too bad but it is the case for most people. Also this lack of experience does not necessarily equal less corruption because other people who see your innocence will more often than not take advantage of it and in politics can lead to more corruption from within particularly those surrounding that person.
2007-12-16 16:10:13 · answer #2 · answered by Robert S 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Lack of experience should not be a concern, but character will help determine "corruptibility". All things considered, being elected into office is incredibly unique in the sense that you can only be president once in your life (provided you complete 2 - four year terms). Hence, past experience is helpful but not an immediate requirement.
2007-12-16 16:20:17 · answer #3 · answered by GQ_Finest 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That can be but not necessarily. In his specific case I see no reason to assume that much. His staff is filled with experienced political folks a lot previously even worked for the Clinton administration. I don't think that's bad either. I don't believe in naive political leaders and innocence of often no more than another word for naive. Politics is hard and dirty. Innocent naive idealists will not become successful leaders but be played by the system
2007-12-16 16:05:05 · answer #4 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Do you believe his lack of experience also equals less corruption in his politics?"
Yes. Only because being under the radar equates to corporations ignoring you as well. When ones name hits the lime light, that person then becomes exposed to the litany of special interests groups who see the potential for a political tool in the making. Thus, to me, it is the chicken or the egg analogy. I'd say one becomes popular before being thoroughly corrupted. Then the corrupt entities increase that person's power/popularity.
When people turn to you to start lie-based wars, you have reached the zenith of corruption.
Ever see "The Untouchables"? Sean Connery recommended going to the tree and grabbing an apple before it hits the barrel of corruption. It seemed like good advice (Yes. I know it was a movie)
2007-12-16 16:12:08 · answer #5 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not really. I know plenty of people who lack experience (in everything) but are plenty willing to cheat and lie if given the chance.
Then I know plenty of people with experiences in many things (jobs, career, etc.) and will never lie or cheat (or consciencely).
Then there are people in the middle on both side. Forget experience Just decide whether to trust him or not!
Good Luck.
P.S. Lately I've been kind of leaning toward Biden. He looks presidential and is very informed on issues and has really good solutions to many problem. Then there the Huckleberry - I mean Huckabee. I just want to be able to say ...
---- I HEART Huckabee ---
And mean it... Just kidding - he's a nice guy.
2007-12-16 16:11:46 · answer #6 · answered by Lover not a Fighter 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Barak Obama probably has as much experience as the rest of the dems. That isn't much. Non of them could run a chili dog stand.
2007-12-16 16:01:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Corruption isn't the issue of inexperience. We, the citizens of the US, really need someone who will bridge the gap between the parties that have gained nothing for us by creating such a distance that we cannot provide for all Americans.
2007-12-16 16:06:47 · answer #8 · answered by rance42 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree. This is one of the main reasons I am inclined to vote for him. He's open. Everyone else, especially Billary, never seems to know what their campaign staff is doing. The requirements for president asks for a US citizen over 35 years of age. It doesn't say anything about experience. If it did,George Washington never would have gotten the job.
2007-12-16 17:15:06 · answer #9 · answered by Semp-listic! 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He did have a bit of a skyrocket entry to politics but so did Kennedy.
Using the Bush logic as he explained in his first presidential debate. an absolute idiot could be president. " I may not know everything; but I know how to surround myself with experts that do"
With the Bush Model, Homer Simpson could be President.
2007-12-16 16:06:42 · answer #10 · answered by whirling W dervish 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋