Inexperience -- the New Experience
The Washington Post reported:
"It (Palin) was a startling choice...that Democrats quickly criticized as not meeting McCain's stated goal of picking someone who would be ready to assume the presidency at a moment's notice."
Apparently the preceding was stated without regard for its extreme irony, which boils down to the Democratic hope of electing a president who lacks what it takes to assume the presidency on a moment's -- or an election's -- notice.
Americans have obsessed about the fiber and background of presidential candidates forever. We've sought leadership from former generals, like Eisenhower. From people descended from political dynasties, like the Kennedy's and Bushes. We witnessed the feeble attempts of a businessman to reach the top. Perot. More recently Mitt Romney, who embodies both business and political dynasticism. We rejected a pugnacious politician despite his success governing a city long characterized as ungovernable. Rudy. And we rejected a woman whose only meaningful qualification was her status as former First Lady.
Some qualifications come and go. Eisenhower was a popular war hero. It's unlikely he was elected president of the US due to his post-WWII stint as president of Columbia University.
It seemed as though America put the issue of military service among presidents to rest after draft-dodger Bill Clinton beat two decorated combat veterans of WWII. Every president since FDR has had military service on his resume except Clinton. Reagan, arguably, had no meaningful military experience, but he was part of the "war effort" in Hollywood. Clinton, in contrast, was a bona-fide draft dodger, yet another crime to add to his resume.
However, the issue of military service was revived in the last two elections. Gore, for reasons found only in his surreal mind, devalued his military service in Vietnam by making false claims about his activities while there. Despite honorable service as an Army journalist, he embellished his record to improve his chances with voters. Instead, some voters undoubtedly questioned his sanity. Since Gore's true military record was superior to Bushes', it's impossible to understand his need to fabricate. But he did.
Kerry had Bush beat on that basis too. Then again, maybe he didn't. Kerry's discharge status has never been revealed. After throwing his Navy medals away at a political rally at the start of his political career, it is likely the Navy gave him a dishonorable discharge. He was in the reserves at the time he spewed his contempt for the US at that rally. But Kerry's supporters were willing to overlook that issue. Nevertheless, on election day he found he had too few supporters.
What works in presidential elections. What do voters want? Obama thinks the magic word is "Change." Unfortunately, when his supporters chant that "The Line for Change Starts Here", too many others realize Obama is appealing to panhandlers everywhere. In his acceptance speech Thursday night, he promised handouts to everyone.
As an American who grew up benefiting from handouts, what else should people expect from Obama? He did make the most of the handouts he received, proving that some people can go places if they get a little help. But -- he acknowledged that the true key to his success was his mother and grandparents. After they formed and shaped his human clay into something good, Harvard took over. After Harvard transformed him into one of America's elite, he decided to become a helper of the less fortunate. Noble, yes, but hardly a warm-up position for the presidency. A community organizer, which means he was a social worker seeking handouts for the less fortunate. That's his experience. More accurately, it is his inexperience.
An idea was born. It has gathered strength since the early days of the primaries. Candidates criticized each other for lacking the right stuff, the right experience to serve as president. Someone in Obama's camp was clever enough to turn this weakness into a strenth. Rather than claim Obama had the "experience" to be president, he was defined as the best choice because he had none. His experience void was redefined as "Change." This time, the defining characteristic is inexperience. Which party can claim to have the least? Till Palin was named McCain's running mate, it was said that five years as a POW in North Vietnam was NOT an experience that qualified a candidate to run the country. Fair criticism. One could say the same of any person incarcerated for five years, including Nelson Mandela.
The idea was born. To hell with experience. Let's run a campaign in which candidates claim to have as little as possible. A Dutch Auction for experience. How little will voters accept? Do voters want a president with NO experience? Or will they hedge a little and accept only a vice president making the leap from obscurity to a top slot on the world stage?
When this idea got started, Dems were way out in front with Obama. The candidate with the least. A guy not far from high school class president. A guy who hopes to move from the minor league to the top of the big-league pyramid in one single leap. A guy who wants to become President Handout, because government helped him. He benefited from handouts in his early years, and was so taken by the concept that he wants a lifetime paycheck from taxpayers. Okay, that's most politicians. But in Obama's case, he's become a practitioner of the logical fallacy known as the Fallacy of Composition.
He believes that if something is good for one, it is good for all. However, things don't work that way. If you are in the stands at a football game and you stand up to get a better view of the game, you benefit. But if all the fans in front of you stand up too, you have gained nothing. Still, that's Obama's game plan. A Fallacy of Composition. If handouts to a few are good, then handouts to all are better. Sorry. Who will provide the handouts if everyone is receiving handouts?
Nevertheless, Republicans challenged Dems on the Inexperience factor by naming a VP candidate who rivals Obama. Since Democrats nominated a candidate with no experience for the presidency, the field was open for Republicans to find someone similarly lacking. However, Palin IS governor of Alaska, which means she has far MORE political responsibility and experience than Obama. Moreover, she's the VP candidate. The person in the on-deck circle (baseball talk), which means she starts her VP tenure with training wheels, in the background, and she will have time to develop.
Obama, on the other hand, would jump into the game at the top with nothing but his Marxist instincts to guide him.
So it's come to this: Which party can claim to have the best inexperienced candidate?
By the way, has anyone noticed that Obama has no friends? Except for maybe Tony Rezko, Bill Ayres and Reverend Wright?
It's odd that no close personal friends of his have been quoted. No personal endorsements from anyone other than a couple of Democrats obliged to support a fellow party member.
"It (Palin) was a startling choice...that Democrats quickly criticized as not meeting McCain's stated goal of picking someone who would be ready to assume the presidency at a moment's notice."
Apparently the preceding was stated without regard for its extreme irony, which boils down to the Democratic hope of electing a president who lacks what it takes to assume the presidency on a moment's -- or an election's -- notice.
Americans have obsessed about the fiber and background of presidential candidates forever. We've sought leadership from former generals, like Eisenhower. From people descended from political dynasties, like the Kennedy's and Bushes. We witnessed the feeble attempts of a businessman to reach the top. Perot. More recently Mitt Romney, who embodies both business and political dynasticism. We rejected a pugnacious politician despite his success governing a city long characterized as ungovernable. Rudy. And we rejected a woman whose only meaningful qualification was her status as former First Lady.
Some qualifications come and go. Eisenhower was a popular war hero. It's unlikely he was elected president of the US due to his post-WWII stint as president of Columbia University.
It seemed as though America put the issue of military service among presidents to rest after draft-dodger Bill Clinton beat two decorated combat veterans of WWII. Every president since FDR has had military service on his resume except Clinton. Reagan, arguably, had no meaningful military experience, but he was part of the "war effort" in Hollywood. Clinton, in contrast, was a bona-fide draft dodger, yet another crime to add to his resume.
However, the issue of military service was revived in the last two elections. Gore, for reasons found only in his surreal mind, devalued his military service in Vietnam by making false claims about his activities while there. Despite honorable service as an Army journalist, he embellished his record to improve his chances with voters. Instead, some voters undoubtedly questioned his sanity. Since Gore's true military record was superior to Bushes', it's impossible to understand his need to fabricate. But he did.
Kerry had Bush beat on that basis too. Then again, maybe he didn't. Kerry's discharge status has never been revealed. After throwing his Navy medals away at a political rally at the start of his political career, it is likely the Navy gave him a dishonorable discharge. He was in the reserves at the time he spewed his contempt for the US at that rally. But Kerry's supporters were willing to overlook that issue. Nevertheless, on election day he found he had too few supporters.
What works in presidential elections. What do voters want? Obama thinks the magic word is "Change." Unfortunately, when his supporters chant that "The Line for Change Starts Here", too many others realize Obama is appealing to panhandlers everywhere. In his acceptance speech Thursday night, he promised handouts to everyone.
As an American who grew up benefiting from handouts, what else should people expect from Obama? He did make the most of the handouts he received, proving that some people can go places if they get a little help. But -- he acknowledged that the true key to his success was his mother and grandparents. After they formed and shaped his human clay into something good, Harvard took over. After Harvard transformed him into one of America's elite, he decided to become a helper of the less fortunate. Noble, yes, but hardly a warm-up position for the presidency. A community organizer, which means he was a social worker seeking handouts for the less fortunate. That's his experience. More accurately, it is his inexperience.
An idea was born. It has gathered strength since the early days of the primaries. Candidates criticized each other for lacking the right stuff, the right experience to serve as president. Someone in Obama's camp was clever enough to turn this weakness into a strenth. Rather than claim Obama had the "experience" to be president, he was defined as the best choice because he had none. His experience void was redefined as "Change." This time, the defining characteristic is inexperience. Which party can claim to have the least? Till Palin was named McCain's running mate, it was said that five years as a POW in North Vietnam was NOT an experience that qualified a candidate to run the country. Fair criticism. One could say the same of any person incarcerated for five years, including Nelson Mandela.
The idea was born. To hell with experience. Let's run a campaign in which candidates claim to have as little as possible. A Dutch Auction for experience. How little will voters accept? Do voters want a president with NO experience? Or will they hedge a little and accept only a vice president making the leap from obscurity to a top slot on the world stage?
When this idea got started, Dems were way out in front with Obama. The candidate with the least. A guy not far from high school class president. A guy who hopes to move from the minor league to the top of the big-league pyramid in one single leap. A guy who wants to become President Handout, because government helped him. He benefited from handouts in his early years, and was so taken by the concept that he wants a lifetime paycheck from taxpayers. Okay, that's most politicians. But in Obama's case, he's become a practitioner of the logical fallacy known as the Fallacy of Composition.
He believes that if something is good for one, it is good for all. However, things don't work that way. If you are in the stands at a football game and you stand up to get a better view of the game, you benefit. But if all the fans in front of you stand up too, you have gained nothing. Still, that's Obama's game plan. A Fallacy of Composition. If handouts to a few are good, then handouts to all are better. Sorry. Who will provide the handouts if everyone is receiving handouts?
Nevertheless, Republicans challenged Dems on the Inexperience factor by naming a VP candidate who rivals Obama. Since Democrats nominated a candidate with no experience for the presidency, the field was open for Republicans to find someone similarly lacking. However, Palin IS governor of Alaska, which means she has far MORE political responsibility and experience than Obama. Moreover, she's the VP candidate. The person in the on-deck circle (baseball talk), which means she starts her VP tenure with training wheels, in the background, and she will have time to develop.
Obama, on the other hand, would jump into the game at the top with nothing but his Marxist instincts to guide him.
So it's come to this: Which party can claim to have the best inexperienced candidate?
By the way, has anyone noticed that Obama has no friends? Except for maybe Tony Rezko, Bill Ayres and Reverend Wright?
It's odd that no close personal friends of his have been quoted. No personal endorsements from anyone other than a couple of Democrats obliged to support a fellow party member.
posted by no_slappz at 10:57 AM
3 Comments:
satire becomes you
and have a great and safe extended holiday
torrance,
Until now this campaign was close to a laugh-free experience. At least we are entering a period when a few pleasant jokes can arise.
Things got especially interesting following the announcement that Palin's daughter is pregnant.
Obviously Democrats want to forget that John Edwards also had a recent pregnancy problem that he lied about. Then he told the truth about having an affair, but continued to lie about knocking up the woman who had the baby several months ago, in fact, at about the same time as Palin had her child.
Unfortunately, Edwards is still lying about fathering the child and paying huge sums to keep his girlfriend out of sight while he works on ways to dump her. Edwards is a coward.
Palin may have weaknesses, but they are nothing compared with the flaws running through Edwards, who had wanted the presidency and then hoped for a shot as vice president. Presumably Obama crossed him off the v.p. list when rumors of the affair and baby circulated.
On the other hand, McCain has accepted Palin lock, stock and gun barrel, pregnant daughter and all.
But slappz is a laugh a minute! God bless you slappz for bringing such joviality to folks!
Post a Comment
<< Home