Jonathan Zimmerman: President Bush was unqualified to run the country in 2000, just as Obama is now
[Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University.]
I went to college with Sen. Barack Obama. As best I can recall, I had one class with him. It was a sociology course, and he sat a few seats away from me. He was quiet, friendly and smart.
Now, if you believe the hype, he's a few straw polls away from becoming our next president. I'd be inclined to vote for Obama too, because I share his politics. But there's just one little problem: He's not qualified for the job. And that gives him something in common with a certain oil-drilling, baseball-team-owning, two-term governor from Texas.
I speak, of course, of George W. Bush in 2000.
Remember 2000? It was not so long ago. The Democrats nominated Al Gore, whose experience clearly qualified him for the White House: eight years each in the House, the Senate and the vice presidency. As if that wasn't enough, Gore had also published a book about the environment, "Earth in the Balance."
Just as clearly, Gore's opponent was unqualified to become our president. True, Bush served for six years as governor of Texas. But the Lone Star State places sharp limits on gubernatorial power, especially in budgetary matters. So Gov. Bush became famous for working a five- or six-hour day.
Before that, he ran Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers, with money put up by family friends; he also started a few oil businesses, with little success.
And, of course, he worked on his father's political campaigns.
Qualified for the White House? No way.
That's why The New York Times, in its October 2000 editorial endorsing Al Gore, wrote that Bush simply lacked presidential timber.
"He offers himself as an experienced leader who would end the culture of bickering in Washington and use wisdom and resoluteness in dealing with domestic social problems and international crises," the Times wrote of Bush. "But his resume is too thin for the nation to bet on his growing into the kind of leader he claims already to be."
Sound familiar? Like Bush in 2000, Barack Obama has pledged to end the partisan rancor that infects our national politics. He's a unifier, a healer, someone who will put the good of the nation first.
Perhaps so; I'd certainly like to believe it. But those of us who endorse Obama's politics should be the first to admit that he just doesn't have the preparation. At least Bush was the chief executive of a large American state, albeit one with a weak governor. Until now, Obama has been the leader of ... nothing.
Yes, he served eight years in the Illinois Senate; and yes, he has spent the last two in the U.S. Senate. He was also a law professor, a civil rights attorney and a community organizer. All admirable lines of work. But do they qualify you for the highest office of the land?
Here you might reply that Obama has the good sense to surround himself with able advisers who will compensate for his lack of experience and knowledge. Trouble is, that's precisely what Bush said in 2000. And liberals weren't persuaded. Especially in foreign-policy matters, The New York Times opined, Bush's weak background "cannot be erased by his promise to have heavyweight advisers."
And who were these advisers? Why, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney!
You don't have to be a raving left-winger to acknowledge that--all things considered--it has not worked out very well. Indeed, in the controversy over the Iraq war, nearly every Republican heavyweight in Congress has criticized Bush for his overreliance on Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Ah, but you'll say, Obama is different. He might not have the resume, but he has the "character" to be a great president. Again, that could be true. But it's also straight from the GOP playbook, circa 2000. Bush was a good person, we were told, a "regular guy" who would resist the wiles of inside-the-beltway politics. Democrats didn't buy that line the last time around. Why change our tune now?
In short, my fellow liberals, we cannot have it both ways. If George W. Bush was unqualified to be our president, Barack Obama is even more so. One day, I hope, the quiet young man who sat next to me in class will sit in the Oval Office. But that day is still a few years off, and none of us should be shy about saying so. Like our presidents, we need to learn from experience.
I went to college with Sen. Barack Obama. As best I can recall, I had one class with him. It was a sociology course, and he sat a few seats away from me. He was quiet, friendly and smart.
Now, if you believe the hype, he's a few straw polls away from becoming our next president. I'd be inclined to vote for Obama too, because I share his politics. But there's just one little problem: He's not qualified for the job. And that gives him something in common with a certain oil-drilling, baseball-team-owning, two-term governor from Texas.
I speak, of course, of George W. Bush in 2000.
Remember 2000? It was not so long ago. The Democrats nominated Al Gore, whose experience clearly qualified him for the White House: eight years each in the House, the Senate and the vice presidency. As if that wasn't enough, Gore had also published a book about the environment, "Earth in the Balance."
Just as clearly, Gore's opponent was unqualified to become our president. True, Bush served for six years as governor of Texas. But the Lone Star State places sharp limits on gubernatorial power, especially in budgetary matters. So Gov. Bush became famous for working a five- or six-hour day.
Before that, he ran Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers, with money put up by family friends; he also started a few oil businesses, with little success.
And, of course, he worked on his father's political campaigns.
Qualified for the White House? No way.
That's why The New York Times, in its October 2000 editorial endorsing Al Gore, wrote that Bush simply lacked presidential timber.
"He offers himself as an experienced leader who would end the culture of bickering in Washington and use wisdom and resoluteness in dealing with domestic social problems and international crises," the Times wrote of Bush. "But his resume is too thin for the nation to bet on his growing into the kind of leader he claims already to be."
Sound familiar? Like Bush in 2000, Barack Obama has pledged to end the partisan rancor that infects our national politics. He's a unifier, a healer, someone who will put the good of the nation first.
Perhaps so; I'd certainly like to believe it. But those of us who endorse Obama's politics should be the first to admit that he just doesn't have the preparation. At least Bush was the chief executive of a large American state, albeit one with a weak governor. Until now, Obama has been the leader of ... nothing.
Yes, he served eight years in the Illinois Senate; and yes, he has spent the last two in the U.S. Senate. He was also a law professor, a civil rights attorney and a community organizer. All admirable lines of work. But do they qualify you for the highest office of the land?
Here you might reply that Obama has the good sense to surround himself with able advisers who will compensate for his lack of experience and knowledge. Trouble is, that's precisely what Bush said in 2000. And liberals weren't persuaded. Especially in foreign-policy matters, The New York Times opined, Bush's weak background "cannot be erased by his promise to have heavyweight advisers."
And who were these advisers? Why, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney!
You don't have to be a raving left-winger to acknowledge that--all things considered--it has not worked out very well. Indeed, in the controversy over the Iraq war, nearly every Republican heavyweight in Congress has criticized Bush for his overreliance on Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Ah, but you'll say, Obama is different. He might not have the resume, but he has the "character" to be a great president. Again, that could be true. But it's also straight from the GOP playbook, circa 2000. Bush was a good person, we were told, a "regular guy" who would resist the wiles of inside-the-beltway politics. Democrats didn't buy that line the last time around. Why change our tune now?
In short, my fellow liberals, we cannot have it both ways. If George W. Bush was unqualified to be our president, Barack Obama is even more so. One day, I hope, the quiet young man who sat next to me in class will sit in the Oval Office. But that day is still a few years off, and none of us should be shy about saying so. Like our presidents, we need to learn from experience.