regardless of your political views.. MU

[mugrad99]

Congrats to Marquette alum Scott Walker.  

edit: title

[GGGG]

I know too much and...I...must...resist...sharing...

[mugrad99]

I know too much and...I...must...resist...sharing...

Channeling Chicos?
Scott and I were good friends in college. Thankfully, my GPA was a little better

[mu_hilltopper]

And .. congrats to MU Graduate John Proos ('92 ?)  .. he's been a Michigan State Rep for 6 years, now moved to the State Senate.   On top of that, he's one of two guys mentioned for Senate Majority Leader.

http://www.johnproos.com

[GGGG]

Scott and I were good friends in college. Thankfully, my GPA was a little better

It would have to be.

[NavinRJohnson]

I know too much and...I...must...resist...sharing...

Obviously, If it was anything of any sort of significance or had the ability to create a headline or campaign ad, no matter how irrelevant, the entire state of Wisconsin would already know about it.

It will be nice having an MU person as the most important man in that God forsaken hell hole to the west, for what I am guessing will be many years.

[MUfan12]

Scott is a good man, and one of the few politicians I've met that I can honestly say that about. Was at the party last night, and am thrilled for him. His staff has quite a few MU people on it as well.

Red wave? Nah. A blue and gold wave is heading towards Madison.

[Cooby Snacks]

Not really an alum, though, is he?  Shouldn't have his number retired until he gets his degree.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

EDIT:

I don't really want to get near any sort of political thread, even if I don't have a side.

Mods, feel free to delete.

[mugrad99]

Congrats to Marquette alum Scott Walker.  

edit: title

How dare you edit my posts?  Can you edit them for grammar and spelling next please.

[GGGG]

Obviously, If it was anything of any sort of significance or had the ability to create a headline or campaign ad, no matter how irrelevant, the entire state of Wisconsin would already know about it.

Just stuff dating back to his MU days.  Nothing illegal or anything like that...

[MerrittsMustache]

Not really an alum, though, is he?  Shouldn't have his number retired until he gets his degree.

To be an alum, you don't need to graduate from the school. You just need to have attended the school.

I agree with you on the number retirement...but I thought jerseys were retired, not numbers.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Congrats to Mr Walker

It's been a great 24 hours in so many ways

[Benny B]

To be an alum, you don't need to graduate from the school. You just need to have attended the school.

I agree with you on the number retirement...but I thought jerseys were retired, not numbers.

"I'm going to get the best kind of degree... honorary!"

-Mark Zuckerberg

[Coleman]

Just curious...why didn't he finish?

[Chili]

Just curious...why didn't he finish?

indy law is correct below.

[mugrad99]

Just curious...why didn't he finish?

He decided to take his talents to South Beach?   or

He was offered a full time job starting right before senior year. Red Cross, I believe.

[mu_hilltopper]

to run in for county exec after the ament scandal.

Bzzt.  Wrong answer, wrong decade.

Ament left in 2002 or so, and Walker took his place in 2002.

Walker was at MU from about 1986-1990.

If I remember the story right, Walker left MU to run for WI state assembly, a race he lost.  In 1993, he ran again and won.

From wikipedia:
Education

Walker graduated from Delavan-Darien High School in 1986. Before his Senior year he attended the youth government and leadership program, Badger Boys State, in 1985 as a representative chosen from his High School. He then attended Marquette University from 1986 to 1990, but dropped out during his senior year with a 2.59 GPA[5] to accept a full-time Marketing and Development position at the Red Cross.[6][7][8]

[mu_hilltopper]

He ran for Gwen Moore's old spot in Nov 1990.  It does say there that he was working for the Red Cross at the time, 1990 would have been his senior year, so the timing must have been close.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VJ8aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LCwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3180,6573174&dq=scott+walker+assembly&hl=en

[MUBurrow]

question from a youngin': how popular was it to be offered jobs before completion of your college degree that made dropping out an attractive option back in 1990? I understand the appeal of starting your own business or whatever eg zuckerberg.  But being offered a worthwhile full time job by an organization like the Red Cross contingent on dropping out before receiving a degree is something remarkably foreign to me today.

[GGGG]

Nobody did it back then either.  Look, he just wasn't all that interested in school.  He spent more time running for the President of MU Student Government (and losing) than he did in the Library.  This is what he really wanted to do.

[mu-rara]

Nobody did it back then either.  Look, he just wasn't all that interested in school.  He spent more time running for the President of MU Student Government (and losing) than he did in the Library.  This is what he really wanted to do.

Many successful people are more interested in accomplishment.  Scott is accomplishing.

[GGGG]

Many successful people are more interested in accomplishment.  Scott is accomplishing.

Oh clearly.  I am just answering the question of why he dropped out of school when he got a full time job with the Red Cross.  I clearly know that people don't need a college degree to be successful.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This isn't a shot at Walker or his political party, but do career politicians make anybody else nervous?

I've learned more in my 10 years out of school than I ever did in school. Seems crazy to me that somebody could immediately get involved in politics and be an effective leader, negotiator, tough decision maker, etc. etc.

Certainly there are learnings that come from being in politics, but it seems like people would just be learning from the incumbents, which really wouldn't lead to the development of fresh ideas and innovation.

I'm probably over-thinking this.

(again, this is not a anti-republican or even anti-walker rant, just asking the question)

[GGGG]

This isn't a shot at Walker or his political party, but do career politicians make anybody else nervous?

I don't know...  Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln would probably be labelled "career politicians" these days.  I mean, if someone is *good* at his job, why shouldn't they be allowed to make a career of it?

I live in Indiana, and even though I generally fall on the Democratic side of the spectrum, I will vote for Richard Lugar in every election.  He's almost 80, and has held elected office since he was in his early 30s.  But he is very, very good at his job.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This isn't a shot at Walker or his political party, but do career politicians make anybody else nervous?

Hell yes it does.  It goes for both sides.  This is why I cringe so much at the current group in power....not a one of them has had to meet a payroll in their life.  Academics are fine, but why is it that through US history so many of the "intellectual elites" have been utter failures at the top job?  Not all of them, but a lot of them.  They seem to lack real world experience...to your point 2002.  We have all learned a hell of a lot more in the real world then anything we got through theory, class room training, etc.  The world is not a controlled environment, but too much of theory \ academia is.

[augoman]

well put, Chicos, I too get nervous w/ the plethora of lawyers-fresh-from-school turned politicians.  I don't know if the newly elected people will be able to actually do anything, but we may finally get the long promised'transparency'.

on a sadder note, we can also lay claim to Gwen Moore, and Lee Holloway.

[mugrad99]

but why is it that through US history so many of the "intellectual elites" have been utter failures at the top job?  Not all of them, but a lot of them. 

Trying to remember the last "intellectual elite" we had as a president.

[NavinRJohnson]

Trying to remember the last "intellectual elite" we had as a president.

I am one who refuses to use teal, but is that a serious comment?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I don't know...  Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln would probably be labelled "career politicians" these days.  I mean, if someone is *good* at his job, why shouldn't they be allowed to make a career of it?

I live in Indiana, and even though I generally fall on the Democratic side of the spectrum, I will vote for Richard Lugar in every election.  He's almost 80, and has held elected office since he was in his early 30s.  But he is very, very good at his job.

Fair point, I can't lump them all into 1 category.

My gut just tells me that some of these guys might get into the political machine because they are wide eyed and have good intentions.

Then they learn all of the political tricks of the trade, learn how to get re-elected, how to move up, the right committees, etc., and really all we are left with is more of the same tactics and thought processes by those in power.

Its kind of like promoting from within a failing company. Certainly the person getting promoted could be smart, and could be great. But, from a macro perspective, promoting people from within a failing company can't be a good idea in the long run. This goes for both parties as I find them equally distasteful.

(just for clarification, my viewpoint is skewed by disliking politics and politicians in general, and I'm willing to admit that bias... so I might be absolutely wrong.)

I've always been fond of independent candidates who made their careers elsewhere first... but quality independents are hard to find and even harder to get elected.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I am one who refuses to use teal, but is that a serious comment?

Clinton was/is a Rhodes Scholar.

[NavinRJohnson]

Clinton was/is a Rhodes Scholar.

Agreed, but...you don't really need to look very hard to find the guy that may be the biggest elitist to ever hold the office.

[mugrad99]

I am one who refuses to use teal, but is that a serious comment?

He should have rephrased the comment, maybe  "self proclaimed intellectual elite"

[Coleman]

The only true "intellectual" we've had as president was Wilson, who held a Ph.D. in History from Johns Hopkins and was President of Princeton before being elected. Other than that, its been mostly lawyers and wealthy landowners (with an actor and a couple oil men thrown in there). I'll grant that Wilsonian idealism wasn't the greatest success in foreign relations, but that was only one aspect of his presidency. I'd say his legacy is a pretty mixed bag.

[Coleman]

oops

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Agreed, but...you don't really need to look very hard to find the guy that may be the biggest elitist to ever hold the office.

You're right, but I didn't want to get republicans here all fired up by saying something about W.

[NavinRJohnson]

You're right, but I didn't want to get republicans here all fired up by saying something about W.

Pretty good.

[augoman]

while W takes a lot of crap, he actually earned great grades, both under and post grad.

perhaps 'self-styled-intellectuals' would have been the proper phrase.

the shame is some of the best intentioned, truly good men have been abysmal presidents.

[GGGG]

I've always been fond of independent candidates who made their careers elsewhere first... but quality independents are hard to find and even harder to get elected.

The problem is, being an independent *candidate* is much easier than being an independent *office holder.*  The independent in Congress really has no leverage to get anything done. The independent governor has no allies. 

On the one hand I understand what Chicos is saying about having the experience outside of government, but on the other hand, knowing how the system works and building a network is so important in getting things done in government.  Iconoclasts rarely last long unless they adapt.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Trying to remember the last "intellectual elite" we had as a president.

Jimmah Carter was one.  Woodrow Wilson another. 

Clinton was one...he was a disaster the first two years until the last GOP revolution made him tack to the middle, which was the smartest thing he ever did.  It saved his presidency...I'd call him a successful president.



Conversely, we've had people in the top spot that the intellectual elites love to crap on that did just fine.  Harry Truman (didn't have a college degree, was a "simple judge"), Ronald Reagan and his Eureka College degree, etc.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The problem is, being an independent *candidate* is much easier than being an independent *office holder.*  The independent in Congress really has no leverage to get anything done. The independent governor has no allies. 

On the one hand I understand what Chicos is saying about having the experience outside of government, but on the other hand, knowing how the system works and building a network is so important in getting things done in government.  Iconoclasts rarely last long unless they adapt.

Agree 100%, and therein lies the problem for me.

Committees and politics are great for keeping things the same, but rarely lead to progressive ideas and any sort of change.

Usually, it's a lot of talk about change, with everybody getting fired up, and then ultimately going with the idea that rocks the boat the least. It's not the best idea, or even an idea that will work. It's just whatever the politics will allow.

Also, in our current environment, it's a big no-no to talk about long term goals. People used to talk in generational terms, now it's just in election terms. If Walker can't move the needle in more jobs or lower taxes in his first term, people with run him out of office too. He might do a great job, but he won't have long to prove it. Same thing is happening with the current President.

If a politician actually gave a detailed, long-term vision about where they want America to be in 2020 (and actually mean it), people would laugh and him/her.

[Ari Gold]

Career politicians can be good and bad. On one hand you have congress people like Henry waxman who called his po box his in district residency. On the other you have career politicians like jim sensenbrenner. From September to July he travels to the district every weekend (no votes permitting) to hold town hall meetings and attend events to talk constituents. Even feingold had listening sessions in every county. Though given the results, he wasn't listening. Politcians that come back to their district more than once every 2 or 6 years for the summer before the election cycle are the problem. The ones that become part of th dc culture are a problem. The fact is, some career politicians can be good.

What is a bad idea for solving this problem is term limits. Rather I wouldnt mind an upper age cap on politicians. See strom Thurman or Robert byrd

[Ari Gold]

And of course congrats to Scott. (and ha! to badger Tom Barrett)

[mu_hilltopper]

This is funny.  Gene Moran weighs in from his home in Bangkok, Thailand.

[MUSig54]

The only true "intellectual" we've had as president was Wilson, who held a Ph.D. in History from Johns Hopkins and was President of Princeton before being elected.

No knock on Woodrow, but MDs and JDs are usually intellectual as well. They are all basically the same level of degree (Medical, Philosophy, and Juris Doctor). Granted doctors and lawyers usually take different routes than staying in academia other than teaching positions , which, depending on your definition of an intellectual may be the crux of your argument. But I would say that a majority of our presidents have been intellectuals.

Except for Millard Fillmore. Screw that guy.

[mu-rara]

The problem is, being an independent *candidate* is much easier than being an independent *office holder.*  The independent in Congress really has no leverage to get anything done. The independent governor has no allies. 

On the one hand I understand what Chicos is saying about having the experience outside of government, but on the other hand, knowing how the system works and building a network is so important in getting things done in government.  Iconoclasts rarely last long unless they adapt.

There is the rub.  Government rarely gets anything done.  Too many entrenched positions and too much institutional memory.  If we want gov't to function, we need term limits.

[Coleman]

No knock on Woodrow, but MDs and JDs are usually intellectual as well. They are all basically the same level of degree (Medical, Philosophy, and Juris Doctor). Granted doctors and lawyers usually take different routes than staying in academia other than teaching positions , which, depending on your definition of an intellectual may be the crux of your argument. But I would say that a majority of our presidents have been intellectuals.

Except for Millard Fillmore. Screw that guy.

Yeah this is probably semantics, but I don't consider lawyers or doctors intellectuals. I consider them working professionals and those degrees are professional degrees. That is in no way meant as a dig, just that the degrees are generally more practical in nature. I'm a history grad student right now and I feel like the atmosphere is way different than what someone probably gets at law school or med school. Our seminars are basically discussion of readings where we pick apart minute details in eachothers' interpretations and theoretical constructions of world systems and economics, etc. Coupled with this is the intense emphasis on original research and the expectation to get published quickly and often. I consider this the realm of the intellectual. Lawyers and doctors are being preparing for actual jobs and specific procedure.  The vast majority of MDs and JDs do not remain in academia (although some certainly do), whereas most Ph.Ds do.

I don't consider Clinton an intellectual anymore than I do any other lawyer. Yes, he was a Rhodes Scholar but he never even finished his graduate degree at Oxford. Jimmy Carter wasn't even close...he just had a bachelors degree from the Naval Academy...

Most of our presidents did not come from academia. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.  It takes more than just being intelligent and thoughtful (as most lawyers and doctors are) to be an intellectual. And yes, I know this came off as elitist. But Ph.Ds are a lot of work  

[Ari Gold]

I don't consider Clinton an intellectual anymore than I do any other lawyer. Yes, he was a Rhodes Scholar but he never even finished his graduate degree at Oxford. Jimmy Carter wasn't even close...he just had a bachelors degree from the Naval Academy...

Pretty sure his degree was in Nuclear Physics. he was a engineering officer on one of the first nuclear submarines

[GGGG]

There is the rub.  Government rarely gets anything done.  Too many entrenched positions and too much institutional memory.  If we want gov't to function, we need term limits.

I used to agree with this, but I no longer do.  I'm afraid that term-limits would only give special interests and bureaucracies more power. 

[Coleman]

Pretty sure his degree was in Nuclear Physics. he was a engineering officer on one of the first nuclear submarines

Ahhh did you even read my whole post? I'm not saying he wasn't smart. But a bachelors degree in nuclear physics doesn't make you an intellectual...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ahhh did you even read my whole post? I'm not saying he wasn't smart. But a bachelors degree in nuclear physics doesn't make you an intellectual...

Nor does a law degree from Harvard.

 

My point was that there are a number of folks on a certain side of the political spectrum that love to throw around things like what rank someone was in school and what school they went to, often saying those candidates for that side are "intellectuals".  It of course comes down to how you define intellectual.

Personally, I don't give a rip if someone went to Harvard or Yale or just went to San Jose State.  There are plenty of people with pretty parchment on the walls from highly acclaimed schools that aren't worth a damn or are so grounded in theory as to know nothing of how the real word works.  Just as there are a number of awfully smart people that didn't go to the best school in the world but understand how the world works.

[Benny B]

Nor does a law degree from Harvard.

 

My point was that there are a number of folks on a certain side of the political spectrum that love to throw around things like what rank someone was in school and what school they went to, often saying those candidates for that side are "intellectuals".  It of course comes down to how you define intellectual.

Personally, I don't give a rip if someone went to Harvard or Yale or just went to San Jose State.  There are plenty of people with pretty parchment on the walls from highly acclaimed schools that aren't worth a damn or are so grounded in theory as to know nothing of how the real word works.  Just as there are a number of awfully smart people that didn't go to the best school in the world but understand how the world works.

The most effective professors I had in b-school were those who spent a decade or more in the business world.

Government itself is a business, so one would think the same would apply to politicians.  And no, "community organizer," part-owner of the Texas Rangers, law professor, movie actor, peanut farmer, cheerleader, and high school teacher do not qualify as "business" experience.  Since Kennedy and Eisenhower basically went from military to politics, that makes George HW Bush the only president we've had with real business experience since Truman.

Sad.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Too bad you weren't around  for the Founding Fathers- nobody would have qualified.  I think politicians should come from all walks of life and bring their particular experiences to the job. Career politicians who give other peoples money out to perpetuate their jobs has not worked.

[Henry Sugar]

Nor does a law business degree from Harvard.

 

My point was that there are a number of folks on a certain side of the political spectrum that love to completely ignore throw around things like what rank someone was in school and what school they went to, often saying those candidates for that side are "intellectuals".  It of course comes down to how you define intellectual.

Personally, I don't give a rip it matters if someone went to Harvard or Yale or just went to San Jose State, but that's not all that matters.  There are plenty of people with pretty parchment on the walls from highly acclaimed schools that aren't worth a damn or are so grounded in theory as to know nothing of how the real word works add a lot of value and insight.  Just as there are a number of awfully smart people that did didn't go to the best school in the world and also understand how the world works.

The other side of the coin.  Your point comes close to anti-intellectualism.  

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

The bottom line few successful business people would want to leave a lucrative career to work in a field that is overflowing with oddballs. These "career" politicians in Washington DC, serving for 30 and 40 years, are not doing it to "serve the people." They're doing it because the town is the world's largest fraternity row. It's all about social status and cocktail parties. Unfortuntately, most of the people in elective office are such social misfits they think they've died and gone to heaven when they're invited to a party with senators and their wives. You want to work with a guy like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Rand Paul or Mark Kirk? These people are all in it for the status. Business people are in it for the money.

Frankly, MU or no MU, I find Walker to be a complete oddball. Unfortunately, that will probably help him fit right in in Madison.

[Coleman]

The bottom line few successful business people would want to leave a lucrative career to work in a field that is overflowing with oddballs. These "career" politicians in Washington DC, serving for 30 and 40 years, are not doing it to "serve the people." They're doing it because the town is the world's largest fraternity row. It's all about social status and cocktail parties. Unfortuntately, most of the people in elective office are such social misfits they think they've died and gone to heaven when they're invited to a party with senators and their wives. You want to work with a guy like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Rand Paul or Mark Kirk? These people are all in it for the status. Business people are in it for the money.

Frankly, MU or no MU, I find Walker to be a complete oddball. Unfortunately, that will probably help him fit right in in Madison.

I don't disagree with this. Most of the guys who were REALLY into politics at MU...both sides of the spectrum..College Republicans and College Dems...were a little off.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I don't disagree with this. Most of the guys who were REALLY into politics at MU...both sides of the spectrum..College Republicans and College Dems...were a little off.

I always thought it was interesting how 18 and 19 year old kids already had their minds made up about politics.

Where did they learn? Are they just spouting out what they were taught at home? What viewpoints do they really understand and issues do they really care about? Were they reading different history books and studying elections and party politics?

I'm not saying 18 and 19 year olds can't be intelligent voters (certainly they can), but to identify solely with one political ideology at that age seems crazy to me. I didn't know sh*t when I was that age (other than how to make some sort of Skol vodka concoction with crystal light and the juice from the cafeteria).

I can't imagine carrying a flag for a specific side of the aisle at 18 and really be confident in it. Hell, I don't even know what side I'm on now.

[Ari Gold]

I used to agree with this, but I no longer do.  I'm afraid that term-limits would only give special interests and bureaucracies more power. 

We already have term limits in the constitution. They're called elections (2 years for Reps, 4 years for Pres 6 years for senate ) , and if you dont like how you're being represented than you can vote them out

[Coleman]

We already have term limits in the constitution. They're called elections (2 years for Reps, 4 years for Pres 6 years for senate ) , and if you dont like how you're being represented than you can vote them out

+1

[HoopsMalone]

The most effective professors I had in b-school were those who spent a decade or more in the business world.

I think that experience does mean something, but when I thought that my b-school professor's whose credentials were there experience in the business world tended to just tell you a series of stories about what they did in the business world.  I thought that my professors who were known for publishing and were well versed on theory were far superior in general. 

I think people can be just as elitist about their experiences (which has a lot to do with luck many times) as they can be about their book knowledge.  I think when people are not grounded in theory and don't learn how to think, then they get grounded into certain ways and don't understand when things need to change.

[ATL MU Warrior]

We already have term limits in the constitution. They're called elections (2 years for Reps, 4 years for Pres 6 years for senate ) , and if you dont like how you're being represented than you can vote them out

In my opinion the biggest problem with our government is that elected officials spend as much if not more time campaigning and raising money as actually fulfilling their function of representing the citizenry.  If there was no such thing as being re-elected, don't you think they would spend more time on what really matters and that more would be accomplished?

[Lennys Tap]

The other side of the coin.  Your point comes close to anti-intellectualism.  

William F Buckley Jr (an intellectual by any measure) on the wisdom of "government by academia"- "I would sooner entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people in the Boston phone directory than the faculty at Harvard University" - tongue in cheek, of course, but I'd agree that most of the professors I had wouldn't run things any better (in some cases not as well) as the plumbers, electricians, firemen, etc that I know.

[MUBurrow]

edited and deleted because i realized it had nothing to do with MU

[Henry Sugar]

William F Buckley Jr (an intellectual by any measure) on the wisdom of "government by academia"- "I would sooner entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people in the Boston phone directory than the faculty at Harvard University" - tongue in cheek, of course, but I'd agree that most of the professors I had wouldn't run things any better (in some cases not as well) as the plumbers, electricians, firemen, etc that I know.

Re-read what I wrote.  I'm not in favor of either extreme.  

[Lennys Tap]

Re-read what I wrote.  I'm not in favor of either extreme.  

Agreed. I should have posted the quote "stand alone" rather than as a response to your post.

[augoman]

Interestingly, Northwestern's masters in engineering management program will not accept your application unless you've worked at least two years in your field.  Maybe we should be as particular whom we elect.

[HoopsMalone]

I don't know if there is any job or degree on the planet that could fully prepare one to be POTUS.  You most certainly need to be intelligent, though.  Intelligence is the best predictor of success in almost anything.  Degrees from top schools is a way (but not the only and not sufficient) to show intellectual capacity.  Count me in the category of wanting the president to be smart.  I do not think just anyone can do it at all, and we shouldn't pretend like anyone can get off the couch and apply their mid-level management experience and run the USA. 

Winning an election is about being better than the other person and being able to raise enough money to get your message out, not about being the best person in the country to do the particular job. 

[d6]

For me, the funniest thing going is talk about the "real" world.  Having earned a Ph.D. in the liberal arts and working inside the academy, and now working well outside the academy, I am quite certain that I've been illuminated by both these experiences, as well as any other experiences I've had. Neither experience was more real than the other.  Both presented challenges and struggles to survive and thrive. Who's to say what is real and what is not?  Does somebody have to struggle for it to be real?  Do we really think that there's a big difference between being a community organizer and a small-town mayor? Is running one company the same as another?  Does coming from wealth and running a company or running a start-up change the experience?  Is one better than the other? 

The talk about the real world is bunk.  We all live in it.  Ultimately, intelligence and problem-solving is what matters-------and, from my perspective, we all tend to "recognize" intelligence and know-how when we agree with the person/politician/leader and their viewpoint.........

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between being a community organizer and a Governor....fixed it for you

[d6]

Really?  There is probably little difference between being a community organizer and a small-town mayor.  And post election, there is probably little difference between being a half-term Senator and a half-term Governor. 

[HoopsMalone]

The guy did service work in his mid-20s as a community organizer.  Its not like it was his whole resume. 

[d6]

The edit about community organizer vs. Governor goes towards my point (and demonstrates how we can pick and choose what is or isn't an apt comparison): if an Obama supporter, then his work as a community organizer buttresses the rest of his resume, including his work at Harvard, U of C, and as a (short-term)Senator.   If an Obama critic, then it becomes his whole resume.  If a Palin supporter, being a small-town mayor demonstrates her ability to govern, and buttresses her experience as a Governor. Her decision to leave office becomes a smart decision to exert her influence in a larger realm.  A Palin critic could argue that being a small-town mayor of a seemingly remote Alaskan town isn't very impressive nor is her decision to leave office during the middle of her term.  Again, it is our leanings thattend to "determine" what is experience is real and legitimate and which deserve mockery and derision.  

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Well laid out D6 but one's experiences in Community Service are far short of the ever expanding duties and experiences  of a small Town Mayor and then a Governor. Success in one does not predict success in  other loftier positions.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Really?  There is probably little difference between being a community organizer and a small-town mayor.  And post election, there is probably little difference between being a half-term Senator and a half-term Governor. 

The problem with Senators throughout our history is that they are not decision makers.  They are policy wonks and compromisers.  They are not CEOs, not people that GOVERN!  There is a huge difference between a governor and a senator.  HUGE.

And yes, there is a HUGE difference between the academic world and the real world. 

[HoopsMalone]

I am not sure Sarah Palin and Barack Obama is an apples to oranges comparison.  The comparison allows people to take what someone did in his mid-20s with what someone did in her professional peak.  

[rocky_warrior]

Whoa - this was supposed to be "regardless of your political views.. MU".  I think it's finally gone political enough, and not MU enough to get locked.  Thanks guys