Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
Okay, I am trying to be open minded about the guy . . . but . . .
He is on the Daily Show, the topic is his inexperience, or lack thereof.
Part of his reply, along the lines of, "no one has longer resumes' than Rumsfeld and Cheney, and that did not work out too well."
Fine. The only problem is, they were not President. They were, for all intents and purposes, advisers.
Is he saying that if he wins he will surround himself with advisers with short resumes' and little experience (like him and Bush)? Or will he also surround himself with old school?
|
I just watched the same interview.
I think he was arguing the point of "experience," and how it factors into people's expectations.... I don' t think he was saying anything about his future cabinet at all... experienced or unexperienced.
I think his point was simply that when people talk about experience, they don't really care about whether or not the person has "experience"... but rather want to know how sound the person's judgement may be.
And he used Rumsfield and Cheney to illustrate that even though they had a bunch of experience, their judgement may not have been as sound as the country needed it to be.
He was trying to make the point that even though he doesn't have the experience that doesn't mean he doesn't have the qualification for the job... which seems to be a mainstay point in the press.
As far as who his future cabinet could be... I figure that's another matter entirely.