Wow - it's been three months since I've posted anything. Not for lack of interest, just lack of time.
Anyhow, among the many things churning in my turbid little brain is the questioning of Barack Obama's experience and whether is qualified to be President.
Last night, I heard this line from presidential wannabe and former Senate washout Fred Thompson (R-TN), who apparently took time away from his nap to speak at the Republican National Convention. In his speech, Thompson said that Obama was "the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President."
Fred, you're a good actor. But you're also an idiot.
Here's a little comparison for you Fred, using one of your honored own (unless you're from the South, then maybe not so honored).
Barack Obama
8 years in Illinois Senate (1996-2004)
3.5 years in U.S. Senate (2005-2008)
Democratic nominee for President (2008)
Abraham Lincoln
8 years in Illinois House (1834-1842)
2 years in U.S. House (1846-1848)
Republican nominee for President (1860)
Note Lincoln's 12-year absence from elected office. No way he could get elected today.
Obama the "most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President"? Other than Abraham Lincoln, perhaps. But I don't think Lincoln turned out so bad, and he was a decent war-time Commander-in-Chief (at least he won his war).
I note, Fred, that you ran for President with only 9 years experience in any elected office (U.S. Senate). That's less elected-office experience than either Obama or Lincoln. Something about people living in glass houses not throwing stones comes to mind.
Lastly, Fred, please -- I know you didn't write the speech (unless you did), but people who speak English as a first language would not say "most inexperienced." The correct term is "least experienced." Ignorant stupidity is one thing. Illiterate ignorant stupidity is simply intolerable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Some of the stuff the GOPers were saying about Obama during the convention was hysterical. Joe Lebophuque actually accused Obama of never reaching across the aisle to republicans in the Senate, which was laughable given that GOP Senator Gordon Smith actually ran an ad touting how many times he and Obama worked together on stuff.
The whole lack of experience argument has pretty much been a non-starter for RoveCo -- that's why they felt OK naming a VP candidate with even less experience than Obama.
Speaking of ignorance, your whole argument is comparing a man with 4 years in the United States Senate to Abraham Lincoln. Obama while in the Senate has voted 90% of the time with his own party, which is not going to bring any real "CHANGE" which he so often says he will bring, while Abraham Lincoln shaped the very history of the USA.
Instead of being a mindless zombie to any political "SIDE", the fact is that Obama is the least experienced person, with regards to experience as a governor of a state, US Senate, the House, or vice presidental experince, except for Dewey who ran against FDR in 1944.
So for your next blog I would try speaking softly and carry a big stick, rather then speaking ignorantly and ended up with your foot in your mouth.
Although it is difficult to take serious someone who chooses to hide behind anonymity, the above comment reflects exactly the sort of depressingly ignorant state of the American voter today.
The comment makes no effort to contest the actual facts of Obama's and Lincoln's experience prior to ascending to the presidency. Rather, the comment ascribes to Lincoln credit for his presidential achievements. And although they are impressive, they are also irrelevant. What Lincoln accomplished after being elected does not bear on the fact of his minimal experience prior to being elected.
In fact, it makes a point that I don't believe the commenter intended - that a person with negligible prior government experience can rise to become one of the greatest presidents in American history.
Whether Obama is a party-lemming and will bring "change" is also immaterial. I'm not discussing his governing philosophy - I'm discussing his experience. And in that regard, only to the question of whether he has the "least" experience. This is the difference between quantity and quality. You might believe that the quality of Obama's experience is of no great significance - and in fact such an argument is not far off base and is fair game, just as Palin's "experience" is questionable (both in terms of quantity and quality).
But the last part of the comment - that Obama is the least experienced candidate, is simply wrong. It's not an opinion. It's simply a historical fact. Obama has more governmental experience than did Lincoln - not by a whole lot, but more is more.
Also, I note the absence of any refutation of the fact that Thompson ran for president with even less experience than Obama, which makes, by his (and the commenter's) own apparent definition, the least experienced candidate for president. (Although in fairness to Fred, even he isn't the least experienced - off the top of my head I'd have to give that mantle to Ross Perot).
What's sad about the above comment is that this person has become so partisan that the mere introduction of facts that are counter to his/her opinion can only be responded to with name calling (e.g. "mindless zombie"), counter-arguing with non-related issues (e.g. voting with his party 90% of the time somehow relates to whether Obama has more or less experience than other candidates), re-writing history (e.g. stating that Obama has less experience in terms of various elected offices, which is not a distinction made in Thompson's speech but, in any event, is wrong), or just making stuff up (e.g. continuing to assert Obama is the least experienced candidate when, right there in uncontested black and white are the numbers reflecting Obama's and Lincoln's actual pre-presidential political careers).
It's sad that this is the state to which the electorate has been reduced.
Post a Comment