I love politics. I love election years. I love just about everything about the American political process. The campaigns, the drama, the strategy and, especially, the history. Hell, I love it so much, I studied it in college and achieved a bachelor's degree in the field. I write about it every day -- more or less for free.
But the one thing I'm looking forward to the most next week is an end (albeit a temporary end) to some of the ridiculous arguments certain McCain-Palin people are repeating without any clue as to what they're talking about.
For instance, I'm sick to death of the "executive experience" argument in support of Sarah Palin. More after the jump...
Executive experience is mostly inconsequential. We've had a lot of presidents with executive experience who have ended up being terrible presidents. George W. Bush for example. Hell, I have "executive experience" running my own small business, but I can assure you that I'm not qualified to be president.Executive experience is only meaningful if it reveals another, more specific qualification in a candidate. A steely decision-making process. An effective leadership style. A degree of success. But these are all factors that can be attained and revealed through other forms of experience. Running a successful political campaign, for instance. Organizing a legislative staff. Or simply working in the private sector irrespective of advancement to the level of CEO.Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, one of the world's most powerful corporations. That'd be huge executive experience. But if I recall correctly, around 85 percent of America now believes that Dick Cheney is unqualified to run up a flight of stairs, much less run the country.Sarah Palin's big selling point is her executive experience, but all indications prove that she was a corrupt executive -- abusing her power and gaming the system. There's nothing in her "experience" indicative of someone who's qualified to be a heartbeat away from chief executive of the United States.