|
On September 02 2008 06:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 04:24 ahrara_ wrote:
You could argue running a small business is "executive" experience. I trust that Palin is an effective leader and manager. She doesn't strike me as the Dick Cheney type oneofthem thinks she is. But she has no idea how Washington works, doesn't have any idea it looks like about economics or foreign affairs. I'm not saying she won't be a good leader, I'm saying she'll make bad decisions and write bad legislation. She won't contribute to McCain's administration in a significant way, and I feel very uncomfortable with her as head of state. And it's not for a couple of years. It's for barely two years, since late 06. Unless you count being the mayor of a 8000 pop town. A couple of years = 2 years  As for your first sentence, I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but it's true. Running a successful business definitely qualifies as executive experience. It shows you know how to manage people and resources. It's even arguable that running the country can be related to running an extremely large business. The US is the largest economy in the world, and the government contains a bunch of different departments just as you would see in any large company. Even more fitting, a company rises and falls by the support of its customers, just as the government changes by the decisions of its citizens.
Running a business that sells groceries doesn't prepare you for a job at a major software firm, was what I was trying to say. Wouldn't you agree that if you asked her right now what our policy towards Russia should be, she wouldn't be able to tell you? She said about as much in an interview w/r/t Iraq before.
|
On September 02 2008 06:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 04:24 ahrara_ wrote:
You could argue running a small business is "executive" experience. I trust that Palin is an effective leader and manager. She doesn't strike me as the Dick Cheney type oneofthem thinks she is. But she has no idea how Washington works, doesn't have any idea it looks like about economics or foreign affairs. I'm not saying she won't be a good leader, I'm saying she'll make bad decisions and write bad legislation. She won't contribute to McCain's administration in a significant way, and I feel very uncomfortable with her as head of state. And it's not for a couple of years. It's for barely two years, since late 06. Unless you count being the mayor of a 8000 pop town. A couple of years = 2 years As for your first sentence, I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but it's true. Running a successful business definitely qualifies as executive experience. It shows you know how to manage people and resources. It's even arguable that running the country can be related to running an extremely large business. The US is the largest economy in the world, and the government contains a bunch of different departments just as you would see in any large company. Even more fitting, a company rises and falls by the support of its customers, just as the government changes by the decisions of its citizens.
This post shows great naivete about what the President is responsible for. Sorry, but your analysis would only be true if the White House was in charge of only the economy. Not only that, but the White House would have to be in charge of the fiscal AND monetary policy, AND in charge of all trade deals/negotiations, as well as a vast array of other facets that are part of increasing the country's GDP.
Further, this assumes the objective of any Presidency is solely to increase the per capita GDP of the USA, as that's what corporations do: they maximize shareholder value. That is their ONLY goal. I'm no president, but I would ASSUME the Presidency is responsible for a much greater array of interests than maximizing my shareholder value as a citizen.
|
Yeah she has a lot of catching up to do if she doesn't want to leave the VP debates crying
|
On September 02 2008 09:28 Kaesi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 06:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:On September 02 2008 04:24 ahrara_ wrote:
You could argue running a small business is "executive" experience. I trust that Palin is an effective leader and manager. She doesn't strike me as the Dick Cheney type oneofthem thinks she is. But she has no idea how Washington works, doesn't have any idea it looks like about economics or foreign affairs. I'm not saying she won't be a good leader, I'm saying she'll make bad decisions and write bad legislation. She won't contribute to McCain's administration in a significant way, and I feel very uncomfortable with her as head of state. And it's not for a couple of years. It's for barely two years, since late 06. Unless you count being the mayor of a 8000 pop town. A couple of years = 2 years As for your first sentence, I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but it's true. Running a successful business definitely qualifies as executive experience. It shows you know how to manage people and resources. It's even arguable that running the country can be related to running an extremely large business. The US is the largest economy in the world, and the government contains a bunch of different departments just as you would see in any large company. Even more fitting, a company rises and falls by the support of its customers, just as the government changes by the decisions of its citizens. This post shows great naivete about what the President is responsible for. Sorry, but your analysis would only be true if the White House was in charge of only the economy. Not only that, but the White House would have to be in charge of the fiscal AND monetary policy, AND in charge of all trade deals/negotiations, as well as a vast array of other facets that are part of increasing the country's GDP. Further, this assumes the objective of any Presidency is solely to increase the per capita GDP of the USA, as that's what corporations do: they maximize shareholder value. That is their ONLY goal. I'm no president, but I would ASSUME the Presidency is responsible for a much greater array of interests than maximizing my shareholder value as a citizen.
What makes you think management is localized to economics? I think he was speaking more generally.
|
On September 02 2008 09:28 aRod wrote:
Yeah she has a lot of catching up to do if she doesn't want to leave the VP debates crying
I have confidence that she will be well prepared for the debates. Not like they ever say anything that isn't some platitude. But if she were in charge of the country, you would all be able to sense her ineptitude when it's her advisors that run the show and can't agree with each other and squabble over jurisdiction. You will see inconsistent governing, poor planning, and worse decision making. You saw it with the Bush administration in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Social Security. Regardless of whether you agree with neoconservative ideology, you have to agree that Bush's management skills were seriously lacking.
edit: The bottom line is you can't take charge of policy making when you don't understand the policies you're crafting. She will be an pretty face as VP, and an albatross as president.
|
No. What he was doing was relying on vagueness and generality to approximate running a business to running a country. What makes you think managing a business creates relevant experience for running a country? I don't mean to ask that rhetorically either. I'd honestly like to know what you think is qualitatively useful experience taken from running a business.
Budget balancing? HR? Strategic decisions? There are a plethora of restrictions and factions that a president has to deal with that a business owner just does not have to do. For every situation where you can try to analogize a business owner's duties to a president's, I can name you at least 3-4 obstacles that the president has to deal with that a business owner does not. In my opinion, running a business does not at all qualify one to run a nation. Can a business owner go on to be president? Sure. But so can a carpenter or an aviator or a professor too. I think temperament and aptitude at decision making and political acumen are much more important than knowing how to turn a profit. And sorry, but in the end, all a businessman's really responsible for is turning a profit.
|
Excalibur:
My reservations regarding Palin aren't political. Not that I don't disagree with her politics (I do, but not extremely) Like I said, I'd feel the same if she were on the democratic ticket and agreed with me on everything. I don't believe in her as a competent president.
|
On September 02 2008 09:45 Kaesi wrote:
No. What he was doing was relying on vagueness and generality to approximate running a business to running a country. What makes you think managing a business creates relevant experience for running a country? I don't mean to ask that rhetorically either. I'd honestly like to know what you think is qualitatively useful experience taken from running a business.
Budget balancing? HR? Strategic decisions? There are a plethora of restrictions and factions that a president has to deal with that a business owner just does not have to do. For every situation where you can try to analogize a business owner's duties to a president's, I can name you at least 3-4 obstacles that the president has to deal with that a business owner does not. In my opinion, running a business does not at all qualify one to run a nation. Can a business owner go on to be president? Sure. But so can a carpenter or an aviator or a professor too. I think temperament and aptitude at decision making and political acumen are much more important than knowing how to turn a profit. And sorry, but in the end, all a businessman's really responsible for is turning a profit.
There is no management position that can compare to presidency, it's a different ball game. As President Clinton said, you could argue nobody is ever ready to become president. But there are certainly similarities in managements, generally speaking, you rely on delegates to specialize in areas, and you make executive decision based on the aggregated information.
It just seems like you're going into such a narrow scope. Of course you can use arbitrarily granularity in descriptions in an effort to obfuscate the similarities, but that doesn't mean they don't require the same skill set.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 02 2008 09:45 Kaesi wrote:
No. What he was doing was relying on vagueness and generality to approximate running a business to running a country. What makes you think managing a business creates relevant experience for running a country? I don't mean to ask that rhetorically either. I'd honestly like to know what you think is qualitatively useful experience taken from running a business.
Budget balancing? HR? Strategic decisions? There are a plethora of restrictions and factions that a president has to deal with that a business owner just does not have to do. For every situation where you can try to analogize a business owner's duties to a president's, I can name you at least 3-4 obstacles that the president has to deal with that a business owner does not. In my opinion, running a business does not at all qualify one to run a nation. Can a business owner go on to be president? Sure. But so can a carpenter or an aviator or a professor too. I think temperament and aptitude at decision making and political acumen are much more important than knowing how to turn a profit. And sorry, but in the end, all a businessman's really responsible for is turning a profit.
I think we're all caught up in a poor analogy. There's running a small business, and then there's being a Chief Executive Officer. I think the latter requires many of the skills you need to be an effective President, while the prior does not. A big deal was made out of Bush's MBA when he ran in 2000 and honestly, I agree that it can be useful. Obviously he didn't put it to good use, but we knew he was a shitty businessman before hand in his dealings with oil companies.
|
So we should hire ol' Mitt Romney? Why not just call in Rupert Murdoch? It's not like the UK's not the same country anyway... or we'll have Steven Ballmer step in! I think it's sad that America's so commercialized that even our presidency has become nothing more than a corporate position. Really, quite sad. Not a single mention of being a spiritual leader, an ideological icon, nothing like that. Nope, it's just like running a corp. Now I see why our country is so f-ed up in certain ways. People really think "winning" the cold war justifies this rampant commercialization/consumer culture.
|
What are you on about? Your criticism is vague and seems to be coming no matter what people say to you.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 02 2008 10:15 HeadBangaa wrote:
What are you on about? Your criticism is vague and seems to be coming no matter what people say to you.
I have no idea, but I'm kind of enjoying it.
Kaesi, it's an executive position so having executive experience (governor, CEO, etc.) is a plus. No one has said it's a requirement, and no one in this race even has meaningful executive experience. Just calm down.
|
NEVER JIBBA! I WILL NOT BE PLACATED BY YOUR BIG WORDS!!! OBAMAAAAAAA 08!! He'S Gorgeous!
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
Karl Rove and Colmes going at it. Before you tell me to watch PBS, no one else is giving the RNC coverage. Fox are the only ones ignoring Gustav. 
Ahaha, Cooper "blah blah blah (about Palin's daughter), and we're also going to talk about whether this should be a story at all." I love your gray hair, but that was a dickmove.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if "running the government" is more of a matter of management skill than ideology and studied decisionmaking, the experience argument may hold a joking chance. at any rate, unless there are elections for administrative aides, talks of experience are bloody fluff of the worst kind.
|
On September 02 2008 11:07 oneofthem wrote:
if "running the government" is more of a matter of management skill than ideology and studied decisionmaking, the experience argument may hold a joking chance. at any rate, unless there are elections for administrative aides, talks of experience are bloody fluff of the worst kind.
?!?!
you don't think if bush had more experience with foreign policy he wouldn't have made retarded decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq like de-baathification and refusing to get involved in nationbuilding? If he were involved in dealing with the issues, he would understand better what is involved in planning something like that. You assume all the president has to do is sign bills and tell who to conduct what war. Planning and strategy also play a role. handling the details are passed down, but the overall planning lies with the oval office.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 02 2008 11:15 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2008 11:07 oneofthem wrote:
if "running the government" is more of a matter of management skill than ideology and studied decisionmaking, the experience argument may hold a joking chance. at any rate, unless there are elections for administrative aides, talks of experience are bloody fluff of the worst kind. ?!?! you don't think if bush had more experience with foreign policy he wouldn't have made retarded decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq like de-baathification and refusing to get involved in nationbuilding? If he were involved in dealing with the issues, he would understand better what is involved in planning something like that. You assume all the president has to do is sign bills and tell who to conduct what war. Planning and strategy also play a role. handling the details are passed down, but the overall planning lies with the oval office. so you mean he's improving his handling of foreign policy ever since he began acquiring experience? let's see, how many wars do you have to fight to gain a +5% achievement to your diplomacy?
as for your question, did you notice i said studied decisionmaking. you think bush's actions in iraq is more a matter of experience than ideology and the people surrounding him and the history sculpting him?
|
that's exactly what i'm saying.
who would you rather trust to conduct foreign policy -- a psychology major, or an international relations major?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
