Rhetorical question re: the 'experience' issue

If experience is so important when it comes to picking a president: Then why aren't Poppy Bush and Jimmy Carter the candidates this time? Both are eligible to run and both have directly relevant experience.

He wasn't even that well-traveled. His times of traveling out of the country were few. But that didn't stop the gop from putting fratboy at the head of their party.

In the GOOP world...this is more codespeak to try to refute the age issue. Somehow it's assumed that since you've been in Washington forever you become an expert on everything and thus the longer you live in that bubble, the more "experience" you have. There's no basis on this "theory" other than longevity. Since Gramps could sail to so many re-elections thus he must be a lot more experienced compared to a one termer.

Now that's purely surface as we've exposed Gramps as being a far emptier suit than most. All he has is being A P.O.W...a powerful weapon he uses to shield himself from a lack of any real substance. His "gaffes" aren't mis-speaks but a true sign of his internal ignorance to many issues. All he is is image...and not a very convincing one at that.

The "conventional wisdom" was the best experience was being a Governor...having to deal with similar political structures on a smaller scale...but boooshie sure shot that meme out of the water.