I don’t know a better place for this, so I’ll plop it down right here. I understand that the GOP used the “he has no executive experience” argument when Pres. Obama was running in 2008. He didn’t really have that experience. He was a state senator for 7 years and a U.S. senator for about half of a term. Fine.
Fast forward to 2012. Why am I still hearing this argument? Does any experience (executive or not) prepare you for the office of the president better than holding the office of the President? It seems that is a ridiculous charge to make against a sitting president.
Maybe you don’t like his decisions, but Obama has almost four years of experience of being the POTUS. I think you need a better reason than “lacks experience” to deny him four more.
Heh. No, that argument doesn’t hold water.
Who’s making that argument? I want to go troll their website.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.