Fehrnstrom even has the same experience I’ve had with almost every Republican in my personal circle since October 2004:
Even before Colin Powell crossed party lines to endorse Obama, longtime Republican friends announced they were voting Democrat for the first time in their lives.
Please share widely!
Can we go back and pull up all his other comments (supporting Romney) and ask for your support of them too? NO? Oh, those comments (about Romney) were flat out wrong but his comment (supporting Democrats) was credible.
<
p>Republicans took a beating (thanks to the economy and the war) and are now in a great position. We can watch the democratic leadership try to tackle some of the worst problems any administration and Congress has ever seen. The good news for Dems is if they figure things out successfully (my hope) then they will enjoy the support that got them there AND additional support from many of the nay-sayers (me) who didn’t want them there to begin with. If they fail then the Republicans will regain control in an already RED country.
<
p>Personally, I wish they would all resign in unison and be replaced by new people with new ideas. Enough of these professional politicians, Democrat and Republican. How can we both embrace the new inexperienced blood of Obama, Hillary (no experience before being elected Senator) and now Caroline Schlossberg while we also embrace the experience (old Washington crowd) of Kennedy, Kerry and Pelosi…)?
Just because someone says something we agree with means we have to back and agree with everything else he’s ever said? I would say people get worked up in partisan comments which sometimes go overboard, but if one steps back and reflects and offers critique of their own side I do see it as more credible.
<
p>As for experience vs. not you need some balance although in general I think we need experience. Why is politics the only profession where that is a negative? Both tickets recognized the balance principle: the less experienced Obama tapped very experienced Biden; the more experienced McCain picked the fresh face Palin. Very often it is an aggregate of factors of which experience is only one piece. Heck, I backed Clinton based in part on her unique experience as First Lady, but was happy with Obama as our nominee based on his, albeit different, qualities.
<
p>Life is not black and white and frankly, I sometimes think you have much to high a standard for consistency than the real world warrants.
imagine this country (or any other) without it? I feel like driving on the left side of the road, gal of milk for you $3 but you sir it’s $6…
<
p>For the most part, when I see inconsistancy then someone has a stake in it. Don’t you think it’s a stretch to take somone whom you have discounted the majority of announcements/comments they’ve made but then when they agree with you, you quote them like they are an expert. Do yourself a favor and be careful when people are not consistent. Be on alert. Inconsistency is a sign of a bias.
<
p>This whole experience vs. inexperience thing is not about experience, it’s about someone wanting something. When it happens there is always an alterea motive. It can be political, family, group (tribal KB)… If you Christopher went for a job and they said you don’t have the experience but you found out the next day they hired someone with even less experience, how would you feel? My take on something like this would be the person they hired had an “in”. There was some reason why they skipped you and hired a less exeperienced person (friend, relative…) so when someone suddenly says experience doesn’t matter watch out.
<
p>I believed Sarah Palin was not nearly experienced enough for the VP position. The only leg she had to stand on was Obama’s lack of experience (according to Joe Biden). This hit on her for experience was well before the hit on her about being stupid. The difference was people had a stake in Obama so the experience requirement went away. When Obama hired his campaign staff, did he go hire a bunch of neophytes new to the whole election thing? Is he now surrounding himself with totally inexperienced people for cabinet positions? Of course not, that would be insane. Experience counts.
<
p>Life is not black and white, as much as I want it. I just found out Monday I am going in for heart surgery on Dec 29th. I just about stuck a microscope up my heart surgeons butt to make sure he was “experienced” with this procedure. I checked his background, I checked the Hospital and even got info on the nursing staff in the cardiac operating room. (ok, so maybe I went overboard… but it’s the only heart I have – and yes to some of you, I do have a heart). I want experience and would not have the surgery performed by someone because of their last name, on how nice of a person he/she was or how dedicated they were to the pursuit of mankind. Politics should be no different at that level.
<
p>
Citing rules such as you must drive on the right or you must pay this price is not the same as using judgement and weighing evidence (although in terms of price some cultures do barter more than we do). Remember, politics is a social (soft) science, not a hard science like chemistry or physics where the principles and concepts always apply. It sounds like you do value experience like I do and I might have misinterpreted your previous comments, though views on issues also count. You have to prioritize factors. As for being passed over in favor of someone less experienced, unfortunately I feel like I’ve been there a few times, but I can’t read the mind of an employer. As for agreeing with someone I think for myself. I try to determine WHAT is right rather than WHO is right and I’ve never known two people to agree on absolutely everything. If I agree with someone and I like the way the opinion is expressed, I may well quote it, but if someone throws back another quote from the same person with which I disagree I have no qualms whatsoever in saying so.
I’ll go with some of what you are saying but I still believe people want consistency and would even say that the civil rights movement was founded on “consistent” treatment for all people which I am very much in favor of.
Would you plow into him, for consistency’s sake? Or would you drive on the left side, if it was safe, for just as long as it takes to go around? Ooooh, but there’s a double yellow line!! Can’t cross that! Society would crumble! Better just sit and wait for the tow truck to come.
<
p>I think one of the major problems with the GOP is the foolish zeal with which members rush to apply “conservative principles”, as if they were kids playing playing dungeons and dragons or something. Join society! There’s no dungeon master anymore.
Murder is illegal but not if you are defending yourself. That is consistent with the rules (just like going around an accident is consistent with the rules of the road).
<
p>I am a proud member of society they. Some would argue that having rules and obeying rules IS being part of society. It is zealous to support one of my daughters in her professional endeavors with the hope that we are consistent with our treatment of both men and women? Am I not part of society because I think 2 neighbors should not be able to build additions as opposed to just one of them who knows the Building Inspector of the town? And ya, if society says on Monday that people running for office need to have experience in politics, but then say on Tuesday when their guy/gal (who has no experience) runs it is ok, but then again on Friday when an opponent has no experience it’s bad… that bullshit. Either experience is required for the job (for everyone regardless of party) OR experienced is not required in which case JOe the Plumber can run for office against Ted Kennedy and no body would utter a peep about TK’s experience (since none is needed).
<
p>Without consistency you would have chaos (Escape from New York).
Let me be clear where I stand on this. I absolutely believe that experience is a positive factor, but it is just ONE factor. For example, if experience in government were the only criterion for McCain vs. Obama, then McCain wins hands down. However, I agree quite a bit more with Obama than McCain that fact outweighs experience in my making my decision. Of course, some might argue that Obama simply has different kinds of experience though with a full generation between the two McCain is going to have more life experience by definition. There are also cases (I’m not saying that McCain is one.) where experience becomes a negative if the person in question has a negative record, albeit a long one. Candidates, like products and job applicants sell their strengths and downplay weaknesses. Very often a new candidate promotes new blood and fresh ideas, but if he wins and keeps getting re-elected, sooner or later he’s bound to say, “Experience Counts!” His strengths have changed and so does his sales pitch accordingly.
I am NOT saying experience is the only thing that matter, far from it. What I am saying is that you have a threshold which people need to show as “qualifying” and then it comes down to the individual’s talents, skills, fresh ideas… So my gripe is about people meeting those minimum qualifications. Nw if your minimum is set too low (must have a pulse..) then everyone would qualify.
<
p>If we were hiring a US Attorney for MA, I would hope they would have some minimum requirements (be a lawyer, have some prosecutory(?) experience, have had a job for x number of years, maybe some management responsibilities)… All this sounds logical. But if we found another KEnnedy who wanted that job and their only claim to fame was they had a law degree and bring fresh blood to the table then I would say NFW! But we have beaten this to death and I’m not convinced we need standards and consistency, with a dose of common sense.
and I believe it is constitutionalized under the phrase “equal protection of the laws”.
I believe I personally treat people equally, thank you very much. At least that is certainly my intent.
Equality is always the goal of everyone, even me and my right leaning friends. The tough part is when our biases come into play (the double yellow line referenced by “they” above).
<
p>As for intent… remember the expression that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Think about some of my posts that you may have objected to, some rather strongly, would you give me “exactly” equal treatment as the next person? Do you look at people in higher income brackets with the same compassion as the homeless. We all have biases and it is very difficult for those biases not to effect our outlook.
As to treating you equally I guess that’s one advantage of relative anonymity on the blog. I don’t know you from a hole in the wall except for what you say in your posts and comments, so I am free to focus completely on the merits. There’s also the qualifier of “All things being equal…” which in my experience they very often are not. I think we have to be careful about using the word “bias” as it often has a negative connotation. In your question about compassion for homeless vs. higher income, depending on the situation that may indeed be a legitimate “factor” which is the word I prefer.
Yeesh. Unless there are some pretty dramatic changes in the GOP, and soon, I hope they find themselves in an even better position after 2010.