History in the making...

[SSmith]

Another interesting video that shows McCain saying that governors and mayors don't have national security experience.

 

[DVINNY]

but they have executive experience, and senators do not.

 

[mudpuppy]

^^So are you saying Senator McCain is not qualified to be prez?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I think governors generally make a better choice for president than senators, because of the executive experience. This cycle, we don't have a choice, we're gonna get a senator either way.

 

[SSmith]

I'm just glad that whoever gets the office, there will be someone in the White House with kids in Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

[MA_PE]

I'm just glad that whoever gets the office, there will be someone in the White House with kids in Iraq/Afghanistan.

JMHO, that's a pretty horrible thing to say. No one's kids should be there and no one should be "glad" anyone else's kid is there.

 

[Road Guy]

If your a senator you dont really make "decisions" you just make arguments and vote. & probably take a lot of vacation

Governors at least generally are the guy / gal sitting in a room with people waiting on them to make a decision, of which some action will take place therafter, which is why I think a Governor has usually beaten a Senator in the past. Bush / Kerry & Clinton / Dole come to mind

Mccain has military leadership experience which IMO is closer to executive experience, and he has a ton of senator experience (which IMO also is pretty useless)

 

[Wolverine]

VPILF

 

[mudpuppy]

^ I sincerely hope you're talking about Palin and not Cheney!

 

[SSmith]

JMHO, that's a pretty horrible thing to say. No one's kids should be there and no one should be "glad" anyone else's kid is there.

Missed the point much? I want our leadership to have to balance their choice for war against putting their children in harms way. Given that, if they choose war, we know it would not be chosen lightly...

 

[DVINNY]

^^So are you saying Senator McCain is not qualified to be prez?

See Road Guy's answer below. I couldn't have said it better myself.

If your a senator you dont really make "decisions" you just make arguments and vote. & probably take a lot of vacation
Governors at least generally are the guy / gal sitting in a room with people waiting on them to make a decision, of which some action will take place therafter, which is why I think a Governor has usually beaten a Senator in the past. Bush / Kerry & Clinton / Dole come to mind

Mccain has military leadership experience which IMO is closer to executive experience, and he has a ton of senator experience (which IMO also is pretty useless)

Missed the point much? I want our leadership to have to balance their choice for war against putting their children in harms way. Given that, if they choose war, we know it would not be chosen lightly...

I really hope that you don't think that any President has ever taken those decisions lightly. I would be willing to bet that any wartime President we've ever had regardless of their party gets sick to their stomach at night wondering if they are making the right or wrong decisions.

To think otherwise is just believing into the BS that the media or someone else will spew out.

 

[EM_PS]

I think governors generally make a better choice for president than senators, because of the executive experience. This cycle, we don't have a choice, we're gonna get a senator either way.

True perhaps - but I'll take McCain's 26 years of legislative experience as stronger stuff on the GOP ticket than Palin's 2 yrs of "executive" experience.

 

[DVINNY]

yup, and I'll take them both over Obama's 176 days of voting "present"

 

[SSmith]

I really hope that you don't think that any President has ever taken those decisions lightly. I would be willing to bet that any wartime President we've ever had regardless of their party gets sick to their stomach at night wondering if they are making the right or wrong decisions.To think otherwise is just believing into the BS that the media or someone else will spew out.

My comment didn't pertain to either party--well maybe it applied to both equally. I would want any decision maker having to make/influence the go-nogo decision to have to weigh it against the potential of sending their sons and daughters to war. That will guarantee that war will ONLY be used as a last resort after diplomatic and other economic tools have failed. And even then after serious consideration.

 

[maryannette]

yup, and I'll take them both over Obama's 176 days of voting "present"

Me, too. 'Nuff said.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

yup, and I'll take them both over Obama's 176 days of voting "present"

Thirded (is that a word?).

 

[mudpuppy]

Mccain has military leadership experience which IMO is closer to executive experience, and he has a ton of senator experience (which IMO also is pretty useless)

This brings up a good point. Does military leadership parlay into good political/executive leadership? How many presidents with high-level military leadership expereince have turned into good presidents and how many have not? In the case of US Grant, he turned out to be a terrible president. Anyone have other examples (good or bad)?

 

[redrum]

define "high level"?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt were pretty good.

 

[MA_PE]

Missed the point much? I want our leadership to have to balance their choice for war against putting their children in harms way. Given that, if they choose war, we know it would not be chosen lightly...

I didn't miss any "point". I said it was Just My Honest Opinion, it's a pretty horrible thing to say and I still believe it is.