On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:19:20 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:18:59 -0500, Jeff wrote:


Jeezus, I
always chuckle about the "experience" argument, especially when made by
republicans who exalt the election of ronnie reagan.


Uh, Jeff..... Reagan was a successful governor of our largest (most
populated) state for eight years. He was re-elected by a land-slide.

Obama has done nothing in the Senate. He started running for POTUS
upon his election and has done nothing except write a book. He is
neither tested nor with any kind of leadership skills. But the
number one thing wrong with him is Teddy Kennedy's endorsement. THAT
is enough to turn me sour.

Dave

ok dave...8 years as gub of califoricatya. and his experience before
attaining that exalted proving ground? and that prepared him to be
president how? and reagan's gubernatorial time is better, superior,
more compelling than obama's state legislative experience, education,
senate experience how?

FWIW, gubernatorial experience is at least arguably more practical than
congressional because it is executive rather than legislative or
judicial. Moreover, given the system as it is in the US, a legislator
is has no (direct) duty to those not his (direct) constituents, and
arguably has a duty to put those citizens he/she represents "in front"
of those of colleagues or in other "non-constituent" categories, whereas
the POTUS' (direct) constituents, at least in theory, are all citizens
and he has a more direct duty to visitors and guests of or to the US,
protectorates, etc.

TC,
R
give me a break...reagan was non compos mentis for 2 or more years as
prez and you guys loved him for it.

jeff