The treatment of apostates in Islam is well known. What if the president of the US was a former Muslim ? An interesting question. I don’t think it has any influence on whether Obama is qualified to be president. I don’t think he is. Three years ago, he was a state legislator in Illinois. Still, the effect on Islam might be interesting, for both good and bad.
Well, Dr. K., my guess is that the MSM (and a number of bloggers) will take a “hands off” attitude on this kind of thing. Jews and Christians appear to be fair game for ridicule or criticism…but only “nutty right wing types” would ever criticize non-Christian faiths.
Or so it seems, anyway.
Heck of a thing to think about on Christmas Eve.
As you say, whether or note Obama had any connection to Islam is not as important as his lack of experience. I have seen other people point to political figures and say “they had no experience either,” which is an odd way to justify one’s support of Obama.
Experience is also necessary in regard to knowing how past decisions worked or didn’t. No amount of experience can guarantee ‘good’ decisions going out into the unknowable future. But the probability of decisions working out good or bad can be established on lookbacks over a career of decision making. The longer career, the more confidence in the statistics. Too bad there is no concerted effort to put these kind of stats into a comprehensive format. I can understand that, it’s hard to put image and bluster into a histogram.
Tru dat, Allan. I have no solution either. But I just read the transcript of Ron Paul’s Meet the Press interview with Russert. Gently put, I don’t think Dr. Paul is quite ready (or prepared) for the job.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/
Oh, I know he had no chance, but there are many people who seem to really like the guy.
I’m not a big fan of Russert, but I think all the candidates should be bashed with their prior inconsistencies in this fashion. It tells us something about them.
A reason why executive experience is better for a candidate is that a president cannot get anything done without two things; a like-minded group of appointees who will follow his lead, and an understanding of how to get other people to do things for you. Neither of these are commonly associated with Senators. John Kennedy could call upon a group of Democrats with previous experience in the executive branch. Jimmy Carter disdained to call on “The Washington Crowd” and never got control of his administration. Reagan brought a lot of people from California. Bush has not done well in this. The people he brought were staffers and not heavy hitters. O’Neill should have been a good Treasury Sec and I still don’t understand what happened there. O’Neill has disavowed that book that was ghost written for him. Bush has been ll-served by many in his administration.
excellent