Remember 2000 when Republicans told us that experience did not matter?

[bluestateguy]

Sure, Governor Bush didn't have much foreign policy experience--in stark contrast to Al Gore--but hey, he would appoint good people, advisors, who would help him to make the right decisions.

You know, people like Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colondoleezza Rice, Richard Perle and Ken Adelman.

The president just has to be a delegator and listen to the counsel of his advisors.

That worked out great.

The fact of the matter is that we have had presidents with considerable experience who turned out to be lousy, and some turned out very well.

We have had presidents with little experience who turned out great, but some also turned out lousy.

Experience is just not a good predictor of presidential success. But it is interesting that Republicans have suddenly changed their tune on the importance of experience.

[elocs]

1. You need a president who will actually listen to the advice and counsel of the advisors

and have people who will tell the president what might not want to be heard instead of being sniveling sycophants.

[Oregone]

2. Experience is really not important IMO. Judgement is.

And Bush failed in that regard.

[Yavin4]

4. That's True Even Beyond The Presidency

I worked with someone who has over 18 years of experience, and he's a complete incompetent.

[cloudbase]

7. I've worked with them, too.

They say they have 18 years of experience, but it's really one year of experience eighteen times.

[NightWatcher]

3. they also ran off the idea of "who'd you want to have a beer with"

and I guess it worked for them....so well that another candidate has run with the idea. Her new strategy, "drinking to win".

[hokies4ever]

5. If experience was important, wouldn't Bush be a great President by now?

After all, he's had almost 8 years of training as President. He's probably worst now than he was when he took office.

[Oregone]

6. Seems to be having the opposite effect on him