How important is experience in becoming President ?

Question

Most politicians that become president never had experience of being a president . Most candidates were first time presidents. Bush never had experience as a president ..

Do you need prior presidential experience to be a president ?

Answer 1

You need experience in national government, something a certain candidate nominated by a certain party has very little of

Answer 2

Common sense is more important.  For example, Bush has 8 years experience as President.  Would you like him again?

Answer 3

Obviously very important. Or they wouldn't have Biden as VP this is a funny move they didn't vote for Biden, they thought BO was rhe MAN now when they were in the loosing position they want an Experienced, Older, smarter White man.

Answer 4

No. Bush is an awful President, perhaps the worst ever, and certainly thanks to his Vice-President, his has been the most sinister administration since Nixon's, where Cheney was first schooled in executive branch deceit and deception, but not because of his presidential inexperience. (If it was the case that experience in the Oval Office confers wisdom and good judgment upon the officeholder, then George Bush's second term should have been markedly better than his first term, and he should have been on the verge of canonization in this his eighth year holding office.)

It was Bush's ineptness at making even a single important decision in both the public and private sectors that doomed his Presidency to failure, and made him a laughingstock in the bargain. Time after time he selected people for important positions in his administration (with Cheney's assistance and encouragement) based upon their personal loyalty to him or the Republican party or to a particular school of economics towards which he was biased or to their evangelical Christian credentials with hardly any consideration of the larger public good. And when these people performed incompetently, that still wasn't enough for the President to remove them and find a more capable replacement.

Why not? Well what's the point if, yet again, you select another person based on his or her religious orientation, partisan political activity, adherence to an economic school of thought no matter how dismal its track record, et cetera. Things can't get any better if you just keep fishing in the same barren pond. But that, in turn, requires intelligence and character, two things that George Bush has always lacked, which are omissions that cannot be fixed by slavish devotion to a philosophy, a religion, a particular school of thinking, or partisan political activity.

Those attributes and a finely honed image can get you elected and even keep you in office, but the results you reap are no comparison to the results you can reap when you have a free thinker in office whose mandate is simply to make America a better, more productive and freer country for all its citizens.

Answer 5

It's definitely important in matters of foreign policy, especially when the Democratic nominee had not stepped on the foreign soil he pretended to know so much about until just a few weeks ago.  It's important in matters of domestic policy when the candidate's views do not agree with the people's and he keeps speaking of hope and change with absolutely nothing to back it up.  Leadership and lawmaking experience mean a great deal and it would be difficult for a junior senator with very little of either to be thrust into the presidency.  Experience in a time of war is a must.  I would rather have someone who understands the enemy as well as military strategy in a time of crisis than someone who wants to negotiate with those whose only goal is to kill every American.  No, there is no prior presidential experience, unless you're re-elected.  However, a couple of years as a senator and community organizer pale in comparison to years of service to the nation and it's people.

Answer 6

You make it hard to answer, you make a good point, most presidents were not president when they got elected to president, but then you bring up Dubya, who not only had a prez for father, but managed to steal, I mean get elected twice.  Does that mean the American public, voters that is, are in the majority gullible?  So which is better, someone who supports failed policies without question, or someone who recognizes our country is in deep doo doo and we need change, but was not a POW?    ABB McClone (anybody but McClone).