|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:42 pm
You know, sometimes it takes a fresh mind to come up with fresh new ideas.
Sure, that's a theory, but several successful presidents in our history have been thrust into office with little experience.
Take, hm, LINCOLN?
Truman, etc.
Thoughts?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:13 pm
I completely agree.
"Inexperience" just means that your the least corrupt, ya know.
And if inexperience means not serving in pointless wars or not controlling things through a spouse that happens to be the prez, then I'm all for inexperience!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:43 pm
That corruption mention actually makes a lot of sense. I full-on agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:16 pm
The best answer to the experience argument this time around is just to ignore it altogether. Engaging the argument elevates its status as an issue. Don't elevate a weak suit argument as an issue. Elevate strong suit arguments as issues, like the economy and government corruption. Both are weak-suits for McCain, and open up his statements on his economic understanding and his involvement in the Keating 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[-Saki-]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/23/46/52bd57a6f4623_flip.png?t=1281074355_6.00_00)
Reply
