Once upon a time, the GOP was better at running these campaigns than their foes. In 2004, the George Bush campaign orchestrated one of the most improbable presidential wins in recent memory. President Bush was an unpopular president, marred in an unpopular war, stuck in the throws of a weak economy, and commonly thought of as thickheaded and stupid. But by the first Tuesday in November, all the voters knew was that he had good moral values and that his opponent was a wavering, elitist girly-man. That was a fluid and well run campaign. A systematic, media-backed destruction of his opponent’s character, while simultaneously riling up his own party’s votes.
Enter 2008. John McCain faced roughly the same problems as his predecessor- an unpopular war, an unpopular Republican president, and an economy on the brink of recession. A clever and well run campaign could have easily secured success. In fact, he had a lot going for him that President Bush never had. McCain was widely regarded as a smart bi-partisan politician. A war hero and a hard working Senator who knew how to cross party lines when the time was right. His opponent was an inexperienced, wavering elitist, with no military experience, and a scary voting record. This campaign should have been easy. All McCain had to do was act like he was already the president and people would have trusted him. But instead, through a series of missteps and failed political gimmicks, Senator McCain has played four quarters of defense, and has all but lost the election.
Where once he was a war hero, now he is painted as a senile and irrational old man. And the worst part is, he has played right into the image. Choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, suspending his campaign, acting like an angry old man in the debates- he has had no control over himself or his campaign. Instead of focusing on his strengths and his opponent’s weaknesses, he has spent the last month defending his weaknesses and attacking his opponent’s strengths. And when he has gone on the offensive he has not attacked Obama’s lack of experience or poor voting record, instead he has attacked Obama’s acquaintances.
Obama should be an easy man to attack. Every time he stands up and says he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans, John McCain should stand up and call him a liar, since multiple independent sources have proved that Obama’s tax plan will do no such thing. And any time Obama says that the Bush administration is responsible for the current financial meltdown, John McCain should stand up and blame Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the end of the Clinton administration. Instead John McCain has gotten stuck using words like “maverick”, and talking at length about some bracelet a marine’s mother gave him.
So here is some advice for John McCain. Stop telling stories about Joe the Plumber and mothers of marines. No one cares anymore. Stop saying one thing in person, and another thing in your ads- people notice that stuff. And stop pretending you are anyone other than who you are. You can not win this election by pretended to be a pro-regulation guy, and you can not win it by pretended to be a universal health care supporter. Drop the negative ads, and take the campaign on the offensive the last three weeks. Otherwise the election is lost, and it has been your campaign that lost it.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Congress Lacks Chutzpah
Elected officials should operate in the best interest of the people who elected them, knowing that occasionally their constituents are wrong. Sometimes they do not recognize a situation for its gravity, complexity and its interwoveness. Our financial system and the ways in which it affects Americans are not easily grasped, especially when the news-media prefers shocking or appalling stories to those that aid people with understanding complex issues or the way an event can have lasting and far-reaching effects.
The failure to provide our financial system liquidity through a "bailout," defines a legislative branch more worried about public perception and re-election rather than operating in the best interest of those who elected them. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would have effectively used the Fed as an investment bank that could have reaped huge rewards for the American taxpayer by creating loan structures that were very much in favor of the US government. Paulson, recognizing the leverage the situation afforded the government, could have used the Fed as a monopoly to set loan prices knowing that it was the most capable and logical lender to any of the enormous financial institutions who had nowhere else to turn .
Henry Paulson's audacity to operate, the way he knows best, by evaluating the risk and return on an investment could have saved our financial system now and given the taxpayers significant returns on their investment in American business. In contrast, congress showed it's lack of foresight and unwillingness to evaluate an issue when self-preservation is more important than doing their jobs.
The failure to provide our financial system liquidity through a "bailout," defines a legislative branch more worried about public perception and re-election rather than operating in the best interest of those who elected them. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would have effectively used the Fed as an investment bank that could have reaped huge rewards for the American taxpayer by creating loan structures that were very much in favor of the US government. Paulson, recognizing the leverage the situation afforded the government, could have used the Fed as a monopoly to set loan prices knowing that it was the most capable and logical lender to any of the enormous financial institutions who had nowhere else to turn .
Henry Paulson's audacity to operate, the way he knows best, by evaluating the risk and return on an investment could have saved our financial system now and given the taxpayers significant returns on their investment in American business. In contrast, congress showed it's lack of foresight and unwillingness to evaluate an issue when self-preservation is more important than doing their jobs.
Monday, September 22, 2008
American Idol for President
In a culture where talent is not a prerequisite for fame, where fame itself has become the only criteria needed for success, it is only sensible that Barack Obama become our next president. After all, this is a country that parades Paris Hilton for her celebrity, that tunes in to watch the families of talented persons, and that has become infatuated with shows like Dancing with the Stars and The Amazing Race. Yes, ours is a culture primed for a know-nothing, do-nothing, superstar-celebrity president.
He was a symbolic senator who voted present as often as he voted substantively. Now he is a symbolic presidential candidate whose best quality is that he has not spent enough time on the Senate to make any grave mistakes. He has apparently learned from Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan that the best way to maintain fame is by doing nothing. Because the great teachings of the Spears/Lohan school tell him that when you are one of the world’s great celebs, opening your mouth can only do you harm. So he stands in front of his rock-star crowds, or amidst his movie-star paparazzi, and he blabbers the same words over and over, never risking his celebrity by saying something that could actually draw criticism.
What began as a whisper in Iowa, has spread to a circus across America. We have Obama girls and media pillows, 24/7 coverage of campaigning in Europe, ESPN specials, and $9,000,000 fundraisers disguised as Hollywood parties. The presidential election has turned into a full blown season of American Idol. Make your candidate a media superstar, show him on television every night, let the people who watch vote, and there is your new American President. It does not matter if the other candidates are a bit more talented or experienced than he is. It does not even matter if they perform a little better at their tasks or seem more equipped to hold down the job. What matters is giving him a compelling back story the viewers can relate to. Or making sure he gets the bulk of the media coverage so that the viewers, er voters, know his name better than the other guy. Make sure he says just the right things at just the right times without ever saying much of anything at all. Then let the crowds roar and chant and make MTV videos out of his speeches, and before anyone knows it he has already won.
Welcome to Obamamania. It is a new hit reality television series airing on every major network. A story about a community organizer from upper class Illinois who broke through the national stage thanks to politicians like Oprah Winfrey and Michael Moore. There are episodes featuring bad economics, big government, and extremist left wing politics. But viewers pay no heed when overwhelmed by the presence of the show’s star. He commands the screen with stirring orations and hypnotic repetition. He is featured on more magazine covers than Tiger Woods, and has more articles written about him than the actual president. With his smooth talk and mass appeal, he is staged to be the biggest of celebrities, the culmination of American pop culture- the ultimate American Idol.
He was a symbolic senator who voted present as often as he voted substantively. Now he is a symbolic presidential candidate whose best quality is that he has not spent enough time on the Senate to make any grave mistakes. He has apparently learned from Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan that the best way to maintain fame is by doing nothing. Because the great teachings of the Spears/Lohan school tell him that when you are one of the world’s great celebs, opening your mouth can only do you harm. So he stands in front of his rock-star crowds, or amidst his movie-star paparazzi, and he blabbers the same words over and over, never risking his celebrity by saying something that could actually draw criticism.
What began as a whisper in Iowa, has spread to a circus across America. We have Obama girls and media pillows, 24/7 coverage of campaigning in Europe, ESPN specials, and $9,000,000 fundraisers disguised as Hollywood parties. The presidential election has turned into a full blown season of American Idol. Make your candidate a media superstar, show him on television every night, let the people who watch vote, and there is your new American President. It does not matter if the other candidates are a bit more talented or experienced than he is. It does not even matter if they perform a little better at their tasks or seem more equipped to hold down the job. What matters is giving him a compelling back story the viewers can relate to. Or making sure he gets the bulk of the media coverage so that the viewers, er voters, know his name better than the other guy. Make sure he says just the right things at just the right times without ever saying much of anything at all. Then let the crowds roar and chant and make MTV videos out of his speeches, and before anyone knows it he has already won.
Welcome to Obamamania. It is a new hit reality television series airing on every major network. A story about a community organizer from upper class Illinois who broke through the national stage thanks to politicians like Oprah Winfrey and Michael Moore. There are episodes featuring bad economics, big government, and extremist left wing politics. But viewers pay no heed when overwhelmed by the presence of the show’s star. He commands the screen with stirring orations and hypnotic repetition. He is featured on more magazine covers than Tiger Woods, and has more articles written about him than the actual president. With his smooth talk and mass appeal, he is staged to be the biggest of celebrities, the culmination of American pop culture- the ultimate American Idol.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Joe Biden's Obamanomics
Everyone is comparing Sarah Palin to Barack Obama. Despite having more executive experience than Mr. Obama, she is not the one running for president. She is on the ticket as VP, as is long time senator Joe Biden. While Joe does not have executive experience, he also does not have a grip on economic logic, which is not that hard to follow. The problem is that half of the American voting public either does not understand simple economic logic or they just simply choose to ignore it because it does not allign with their idea of our country's agenda.
Today, Joe Biden said that paying higher taxes is in fact a "patriot act," and that the wealthy in our country should look at paying higher taxes as "time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." Simply enough, the wealthiest 1% currently pay 40% of all income taxes. If this not patriotic enough, Mr. Biden? What would truly make the wealthy in America patriotic? 60%?
The funny thing is that after the Bush tax cuts the wealthy started paying a higher share of tax revenue, and the total tax revenues today far eclipse the revenues received under Bill Clinton's tax policy. Well, how could this be? How can tax revenues possibly go up if taxes are cut? It's very simple. Let's follow it in a simple, chronological form.
1. Under Bill Clinton, the income tax was very progressive (the wealthiest paying the highest rate), and the capital gains tax was at 28%.
2. George Bush gets elected, introduces his tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthy (the wealthiest still pay the highest rate), and lowers the capital gains tax to 15%.
3. The wealthy now have less of their income going to the government, and have increased incentive to invest, being that the tax they have to pay on their gains is now 15% as opposed to 28%.
4. Investment and money are the lifeblood of business, and is therefor the lifeblood of American jobs. Increased investment means that start-up companies have an easier time finding funding and existing companies have the ability to grow faster, which creates more jobs at every level.
5. More jobs at every level means more tax payers. More tax payers means more tax revenue. Faster growth means more tax revenue on business profits, because these profits grow at a faster rate.
So Mr. Biden thinks that being patriotic is to stifle investment at the top. He thinks that taxing the rich, taxing businesses, taxing oil companies will allow our economy to grow. He thinks that inflating the size of government will create more jobs for Americans. How could this possibly make sense?
The truth is that if Obama and Biden get elected, everyone will feel the pressure from a higher tax burden. Business growth will slow, job growth will decline, and guess what? Tax revenue will increase at a slower rate.
During a primary debate with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama was asked,
"Throughout history, every time the capital gains tax has been lowered revenue from the tax has increased. That being said, do you still want to increase the capital gains tax?"
Obama tried to dodge the question, but when prodded, he eventually came out and said,
"It's not about the money, it's about being fair."
To Obama, it does not matter if the government sees higher revenues or faster growth. To him it is just about "being fair."
Unfortunately for Americans, "being fair" is felt at every level, not just at the top. When oil companies are taxed, prices for the end user goes up. When companies' taxes are raised, they have to cut jobs and increase prices. But Biden says that if the wealthy pay more taxes they will be helping America "get out of a rut."
Don't fall for Obamanomics. They simply hurt the people they are intended to help.
The New Jimmy Carter
Thirty years later, Barack Obama is bringing us the long feared second term of Jimmy Carter. It is all too familiar. A popular democrat riding the wave of media hype after two terms of a scandalous and unpopular republican president. Carter did it in the aftermath of Nixon’s Watergate scandal, and now Obama does it amidst George Bush’s Iraq War debacle. If voters failed to learn their lesson from the first Jimmy Carter term, then history is our guide to what an Obama presidency would bring.
Their notions are frighteningly similar. Carter in the 70’s, and now Obama in this election, believe in raising taxes at home, pulling troops abroad, cutting the defense budget, and putting our reputation abroad above our safety at home. They even both share a fundamental misunderstanding of free market energy economics, and make false promises about government sponsored cheap petroleum alternatives.
The result of these plans is documented in Carter’s history. Poor economic policy at home led to massive stagflation, with full-blown economic depression saved only by the implant of Reagan’s Supply Side economics. Carter’s soft foreign policy was seen as a sign of weakness abroad, and instead of increasing our popularity around the world, we were viewed as a gentle giant. Our enemies took advantage of us by attacking U.S. soil and taking captive American citizens in Iran. And Carter’s weak foreign policy left us without a combat unit to save those hostages- for nearly a full year. Carter was so concerned about our reputation around the world that he refused to take affirmative steps to protect those 56 American lives. He was equally notorious for failing to protect American assets, as he gave away our 99-year lease in the Panama Canal simply because he thought it would look good. Carter’s presidential record is marred with sacrificing the safety of Americans, American assets, and America’s reputation all for the idealistic hope of a liberal European-ized America.
Yes, the media loves Senator Obama, just as they once championed Carter in his race to the White house. But surely this is not the change that we seek. It is a tired old game of soft politics at home to gain favor abroad. Diplomacy has its place in America, but on occasion so does strength in foreign policy. George Bush may leave the presidency in disgrace, but he will leave us with a safe homeland free from attack since 2001. That is no coincidence; it is the result of strong foreign policy and a showing of force abroad. Senator Obama has had multitudes of trouble even casting a vote in congress, imagine the measures of diplomatic bureaucracy that would overwhelm our country if he ever had to go to war, or even rescue captured Americans. In this day, during our country’s vast economic and military crisis, we can not afford another term of Jimmy Carter. We can not afford Barack Obama.
Their notions are frighteningly similar. Carter in the 70’s, and now Obama in this election, believe in raising taxes at home, pulling troops abroad, cutting the defense budget, and putting our reputation abroad above our safety at home. They even both share a fundamental misunderstanding of free market energy economics, and make false promises about government sponsored cheap petroleum alternatives.
The result of these plans is documented in Carter’s history. Poor economic policy at home led to massive stagflation, with full-blown economic depression saved only by the implant of Reagan’s Supply Side economics. Carter’s soft foreign policy was seen as a sign of weakness abroad, and instead of increasing our popularity around the world, we were viewed as a gentle giant. Our enemies took advantage of us by attacking U.S. soil and taking captive American citizens in Iran. And Carter’s weak foreign policy left us without a combat unit to save those hostages- for nearly a full year. Carter was so concerned about our reputation around the world that he refused to take affirmative steps to protect those 56 American lives. He was equally notorious for failing to protect American assets, as he gave away our 99-year lease in the Panama Canal simply because he thought it would look good. Carter’s presidential record is marred with sacrificing the safety of Americans, American assets, and America’s reputation all for the idealistic hope of a liberal European-ized America.
Yes, the media loves Senator Obama, just as they once championed Carter in his race to the White house. But surely this is not the change that we seek. It is a tired old game of soft politics at home to gain favor abroad. Diplomacy has its place in America, but on occasion so does strength in foreign policy. George Bush may leave the presidency in disgrace, but he will leave us with a safe homeland free from attack since 2001. That is no coincidence; it is the result of strong foreign policy and a showing of force abroad. Senator Obama has had multitudes of trouble even casting a vote in congress, imagine the measures of diplomatic bureaucracy that would overwhelm our country if he ever had to go to war, or even rescue captured Americans. In this day, during our country’s vast economic and military crisis, we can not afford another term of Jimmy Carter. We can not afford Barack Obama.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Obama's Rhetoric Masks Deception and Manipulation
"In our time" is a fine phrase that unifies, directs and deceives the American people. Senator Obama alludes to Presidents whose strength and courage in their convictions directed their leadership and this country, but he cannot just use a phrase popularized by President Woodrow Wilson to create an image of a Man of Destiny. Unfortunately, Senator Obama operates more as an opportunist feeding on the fears and concerns of good people who need to believe in something REAL.
When television has become less of an opiate and instead a control, members of the media interpret speeches to suit their own and their company's interests instead of reporting. No longer does journalistic integrity exist, but outright manipulation, including failure to publish both sides of the national debate, witnessed in the New York Times, becomes the mantle of our society: Deceive and Deplore.
The media's patriarch, Barack Obama, shares their intentions of creating a false reality of half-truths and exaggerations because that, they believe, they can sell to the American people. If the world isn't a Jerry Bruckheimer film with cars flipping through the air while missiles are blowing city blocks apart all captured in slow motion while panning out and away, then the candidate does not understand the dire, apocalyptic reality in which we live.
Senator Obama is a fraud, who while contending that the current administration is responsible for the excesses and greed in the financial sector, chooses not to consider that greed is a cancer endemic in our society and corporations should fail as a result, and in no way should the government be considered the culprit. Deregulation frees markets allowing for competition that allows Americans to get the best rates possible for loans (in this case) when regulation would have banned that person for purchasing a home. Although companies might not have used the most responsible business practices, if proper risk assessments are made that account for economic stress during the course of a loan, our economic problems might not be as bad.
Although people as well as companies should be responsible for their actions, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson did a remarkable thing when he garnered a deal with AIG that afforded tax payers LIBOR plus 8% and $24 Billion in equity for the two year $85 Billion loan. Senator Obama believes that taxpayers should not be on the hook for government bailouts, with which Governor Palin agrees whole-heartedly, but at the rates Secretary Paulson is getting, a rational taxpayer would want him to strike similar deals whenever necessary with that return on investment. Senator Obama chooses to characterize this as unacceptable, when our officials have taken proper action and responsibility for ensuring the American people that our economy, though faltering, remains robust.
Senator Barack Obama's rhetoric, though bold and charismatic, remains hollow. He cannot take a position on faith when asked to discuss it with a congregation, nor can he define how we should come to leave Iraq beyond contending that we should not be there. Since he never supported the war in Iraq, he believes we should pull out our troops regardless of our ability to stabilize the country and the region through a longer occupation. Senator Obama, as president must take responsibility for the current state of affairs, despite the problems this administration would leave him. Our President takes responsibility for America, something he cannot accept.
Senator Barack Obama blames politicians, corporations, organizations, and agreements for the current state of America. He blames the Bush Administration for leading this country the best way it saw fit, misguided though it might have been. He blames oil companies for making profits when worldwide oil consumption outpaces supply. He blames success for causing people to earn too much money, saying they should be taxed more to make it fair. He blames NAFTA for taking American jobs when it has kept the cost of consumer goods low and brought about better relations with Mexico and Canada.
Democratic President John F. Kennedy said "ask not what this country can do for you but what you can do for this country." Embedded in that phrase is pride and devotion to make this county better. He loved the United States of America. Mr. Obama, who likes the world to think of him as a new JFK or RFK, does not respect our elected and appointed officials, our president, our institutions, our intellect nor does he respect our beloved country. Barack Obama does not want to empower citizens of this country but to bring socialism to our country and the complacency that comes with it. He has yet to accomplish anything for the American people, not a single relevant piece of legislation. He should not be President.
When television has become less of an opiate and instead a control, members of the media interpret speeches to suit their own and their company's interests instead of reporting. No longer does journalistic integrity exist, but outright manipulation, including failure to publish both sides of the national debate, witnessed in the New York Times, becomes the mantle of our society: Deceive and Deplore.
The media's patriarch, Barack Obama, shares their intentions of creating a false reality of half-truths and exaggerations because that, they believe, they can sell to the American people. If the world isn't a Jerry Bruckheimer film with cars flipping through the air while missiles are blowing city blocks apart all captured in slow motion while panning out and away, then the candidate does not understand the dire, apocalyptic reality in which we live.
Senator Obama is a fraud, who while contending that the current administration is responsible for the excesses and greed in the financial sector, chooses not to consider that greed is a cancer endemic in our society and corporations should fail as a result, and in no way should the government be considered the culprit. Deregulation frees markets allowing for competition that allows Americans to get the best rates possible for loans (in this case) when regulation would have banned that person for purchasing a home. Although companies might not have used the most responsible business practices, if proper risk assessments are made that account for economic stress during the course of a loan, our economic problems might not be as bad.
Although people as well as companies should be responsible for their actions, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson did a remarkable thing when he garnered a deal with AIG that afforded tax payers LIBOR plus 8% and $24 Billion in equity for the two year $85 Billion loan. Senator Obama believes that taxpayers should not be on the hook for government bailouts, with which Governor Palin agrees whole-heartedly, but at the rates Secretary Paulson is getting, a rational taxpayer would want him to strike similar deals whenever necessary with that return on investment. Senator Obama chooses to characterize this as unacceptable, when our officials have taken proper action and responsibility for ensuring the American people that our economy, though faltering, remains robust.
Senator Barack Obama's rhetoric, though bold and charismatic, remains hollow. He cannot take a position on faith when asked to discuss it with a congregation, nor can he define how we should come to leave Iraq beyond contending that we should not be there. Since he never supported the war in Iraq, he believes we should pull out our troops regardless of our ability to stabilize the country and the region through a longer occupation. Senator Obama, as president must take responsibility for the current state of affairs, despite the problems this administration would leave him. Our President takes responsibility for America, something he cannot accept.
Senator Barack Obama blames politicians, corporations, organizations, and agreements for the current state of America. He blames the Bush Administration for leading this country the best way it saw fit, misguided though it might have been. He blames oil companies for making profits when worldwide oil consumption outpaces supply. He blames success for causing people to earn too much money, saying they should be taxed more to make it fair. He blames NAFTA for taking American jobs when it has kept the cost of consumer goods low and brought about better relations with Mexico and Canada.
Democratic President John F. Kennedy said "ask not what this country can do for you but what you can do for this country." Embedded in that phrase is pride and devotion to make this county better. He loved the United States of America. Mr. Obama, who likes the world to think of him as a new JFK or RFK, does not respect our elected and appointed officials, our president, our institutions, our intellect nor does he respect our beloved country. Barack Obama does not want to empower citizens of this country but to bring socialism to our country and the complacency that comes with it. He has yet to accomplish anything for the American people, not a single relevant piece of legislation. He should not be President.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
A Slight of Hand on Experience
While countless hours of speeches and coverage have focused on which candidate will bring “change” to Washington, the democratic ticket has pulled a slight of hand with another Decision 2008 catch-phrase. Experience, once the cornerstone of the McCain ticket, has suddenly been turned against them by a bizarre old parlor trick. Senator Obama has come to terms with the fact that he is not as experienced as Senator McCain, so instead of arguing from that obvious position of weakness, Senator Obama has misdirected the argument altogether. Now, he tells us, it doesn’t matter that Senator McCain is more experienced than Obama, what matters is that Obama is as experienced as Sarah Palin.
Apparently Senator Obama has forgotten that he is running for president, and that Governor Palin has no such aspirations in this election. The issue never was whether the presidential candidate has as much experience as the opposing vice presidential candidate. Even assuming Senator Obama does equal Governor Palin in experience, which he likely does not, it is a non-issue in this election. It is the President who commands the Armed forces and who negotiates treaties and meets with world leaders. Clearly Senator McCain is more experienced to handle such matters, and the fact that Obama has changed the issue is an admission of that. If he can divert the voter’s attention long enough, he hopes, voters will forget that Sarah Palin will have at least a full term as vice president before ever entering her name on a ballot for president.
The slight of hand has worked. Recently Matt Damon talked about his apocalyptic fears that Sarah Palin may become president with so little experience. Stick to the movie scripts, Matt, because if you look closely you will see that Governor Palin is not running for president. And even if Senator McCain has to resign from office for health reasons Palin would have years of experience as Vice President under her belt. Jumping in on the irrelevant argument, even a CNN newscaster expressed her fear in the outcome of a national emergency if the inexperienced Sarah Palin was our Vice President. Apparently, this newscaster forgot that the president defines our country’s response to such emergencies. The issue has nothing to do with Sarah Palin- what matters is how much better Senator McCain, the presidential nominee, could handle such a situation.
It is a common trick. When you are losing an argument try and make the other side forget what the argument is about. Obama has seen the polls and has seen that he is losing the argument on experience. This election is Obama vs. McCain, and clearly Senator McCain is the more experienced and prepared politician.
Apparently Senator Obama has forgotten that he is running for president, and that Governor Palin has no such aspirations in this election. The issue never was whether the presidential candidate has as much experience as the opposing vice presidential candidate. Even assuming Senator Obama does equal Governor Palin in experience, which he likely does not, it is a non-issue in this election. It is the President who commands the Armed forces and who negotiates treaties and meets with world leaders. Clearly Senator McCain is more experienced to handle such matters, and the fact that Obama has changed the issue is an admission of that. If he can divert the voter’s attention long enough, he hopes, voters will forget that Sarah Palin will have at least a full term as vice president before ever entering her name on a ballot for president.
The slight of hand has worked. Recently Matt Damon talked about his apocalyptic fears that Sarah Palin may become president with so little experience. Stick to the movie scripts, Matt, because if you look closely you will see that Governor Palin is not running for president. And even if Senator McCain has to resign from office for health reasons Palin would have years of experience as Vice President under her belt. Jumping in on the irrelevant argument, even a CNN newscaster expressed her fear in the outcome of a national emergency if the inexperienced Sarah Palin was our Vice President. Apparently, this newscaster forgot that the president defines our country’s response to such emergencies. The issue has nothing to do with Sarah Palin- what matters is how much better Senator McCain, the presidential nominee, could handle such a situation.
It is a common trick. When you are losing an argument try and make the other side forget what the argument is about. Obama has seen the polls and has seen that he is losing the argument on experience. This election is Obama vs. McCain, and clearly Senator McCain is the more experienced and prepared politician.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)