Comments on: Not The Time For On The Job Training (Guest Voice)

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:22:17 +0000

It's Michael Reagan, for God's sake. If it wasn't for who his father was he wouldn't be in a position to get public attention for his rants. Keep it in perspective.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:35:08 +0000

What fascinates me is that many Conservative Republicans still see Palin as the asset and Mac as the problem. How on earth can they seriously trust someone who doesn't even understand what the VP's role is, has no foreign policy experience, and who got a D in Economics, to take on the presidency during our worst crisis in memory?

By: onleyone

onleyone — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:29:49 +0000

makes me wonder just what reagan thinks mcCain's chances of living through his first term might be, and how ready ms. “little starbursts” is for the job. certainly sen. obama is the more qualified candidate intellectually speaking.

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:56:43 +0000

QED: “No time for on-the-job training” disqualifies Obama for the Presidency. Congratulations.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:33:54 +0000

exactly–jonimp9

Also, how the new president will do will also depend on whether we as a country can put our petty differences aside and get behind him- whether its McCain or Obama or even Barr. I get the feeling that the pundits are more invested in the new president failing so that they can harp on it from the beginning.

By: jonimp9

jonimp9 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:32:29 +0000

I still have a problem with the premise that there is a so called “post 9/11″ worrld that is different than the “pre 9/11″ world. Was there no terrorism before? Did we not try to fight it before? Were there no difficult international issue to deal with before?

I suggest the difference is only that we see one political party taking that horrible crime and using it as leverage to scare the population into voting a certain way.

By: JMattM

JMattM — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:29:44 +0000

Is it just me or is the “on the job training” argument for the Office of Presidency complete BS? Kritt's right, no one's completely ready for the job. I take things Michael Reagan says with a grain of salt – Ron Jr. is a bit more objective and thoughtful.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:16:52 +0000

Yes Obama may be tested– as Kennedy was tested, as Truman was tested, as George W. Bush was tested—-that is part of the job. When that test comes I would rather have a cool headed president with a VP that has a lot of foreign policy experience, than a hot-headed one who once made an unfunny joke about “bomb, bomb,bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. McCain's approach will be the military one– while Obama's the diplomatic one.

Michael, fearmongering only goes so far. I remember when your dad ran, there were similar fears about his lack of foreign policy experience. As it turns out, those fears were unfounded. Your dad faced our challenges with aplomb and much of his appeal lay in the way he reassured the nation and allowed us to hope. I can't say I agreed with him on everything, but his temperment and readiness was not something I questioned. So, give the new president a chance without prejudging. For no matter which party they come from , or their level of preparedness, every president learns on the job- including your dad.