Hmm....gov of CA, labor union President....hmm....not much of a comparison there.

Indeed I did respond in that fashion, so of course the comparison is still not very good.

Oh really, Labor Union President? Is that the big qualilfication difference between Ronald and Arnold??


Pulease, you make me laugh.

I think that there are times when too much emphasis is placed on experience. Reagan's strength was not in his experience, it was in his leadership abilities - ones which I suspect he possessed long before he was ever put in charge of leading anything. Experience helps, but it is not the end-all of leadership ability.

There are plenty of people who are very experienced, and yet very poor leaders. Carter had much more experience than Reagan. Both were Governors, but only one was a Navy Lieutenant and a two-term senator, not to mention already had four years in the White House.) The other was an actor. And guess what, the less experienced actor won the election, mainly because people liked him more than the more experienced guy, primarily because of his charisma and excellent ability to deliver a speech - both which would be invaluable assets during his presidency. And, with the exception of a few black marks, he is generally considered to have been an effective leader. Imagine that.

If you're going to talk about people getting elected on celebrity and star power then I think a better comparison would be to JFK (yes, he has political experience) than to Reagan.

Perhaps. I just couldn't figure out a way to work a snide remark about scaeagles' avatar into a discussion about Kennedy.

I suppose I could have listed "community activist", because that's a qualification that Obama lists.

On a side note, is Arnold better than Davis whom he replaced after the recall? I don't follow CA politics, so I don't know.

Snark all you want, MBC - he's still my hero.

And I think I was rather flattering to him in my last post. I think he was perhaps one of the most charismatic and well-spoken Presidents we have had in recent history. In fact, it is a testament to how far those traits can get you in life and how effective they can be in a leadership role.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it gives me HOPE, that better days lie ahead, once we again have a leader that can speak well for our nation, earn the respect of our allies, and inspire us to be better. We have been missing that for almost a decade, and it is painfully evident. So you see, in some ways, Obama is very much like Reagan (and that is without going into detail about Reagan raising taxes or being pro-choice while Governor.)

I assume I have made you feel more more comfortable about voting for Obama now.

Ummm....no.

The thing about Reagan is the he didn't care what those in foreign countries thought of him.

Much of the populace of Europe was dead set against how he dealt with the Soviets and did not like Reagan. They were flabbergasted when he walked out of talks with Gorby and didn't think the policy of US nukes stationed there was a good idea.

Reagan also raised taxes as President, part of a deal with Confgress that taught him a valuable lesson about making deals with Congress. They didn't keep their end, which was to cut spending by $2 for every dollar in increased taxes. Didn't work out quite that way.

I'm not confident voting for either for President.

They didn't have to like him for him to be effective, but the did have to respect him. Right now, our leaders garner no respect. That needs to change.