In a way it really doesn't matter, because President Obama's actions will have their consequences regardless of the psychology behind them, but we're still trying to understand what makes the man tick. Great political minds continue to puzzle over his words and actions, asking the eternal question: Is he doing it on purpose? The latest "it" is his notorious pronouncements on Israel last week. Krauthammer:
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.Steyn:
I mean, what I find fascinating, thinking about this 1967 border stuff, is whether he intended it as a conscious shift in U.S. policy that would alarm the Israeli government, or whether with the casual arrogance of his half-wit 12 year old speechwriters, it just somehow got in there, and he finds himself standing up there saying it. That’s what I don’t understand.I'll go with the casual arrogance, but who knows? It's a pretty horrifying state of affairs when it's impossible to distinguish a president's arrogant bumbling from his deliberate (and also arrogant) actions. Regardless, the arrogance is a constant. It's the hallmark of Obama's lousy temperament, so perfectly ill-suited to the job his deluded supporters gave him. (Read the rest of both items linked above.)
As for 2012:
Is Paul Ryan "leaving the door ajar" for a run? We link, you decide:
Bill Kristol
Jonah Goldberg
Andrew Stiles
Husband points out that Ryan has no executive experience. Discuss.
The DNC goes after Herman Cain. Cain's people say thanks for noticing:
“Are we surprised they are attacking Mr. Cain? No. Are we surprised it took this long? Maybe. He has a strong ground game. He has a lot of fervent support, as the most recent polls show. And once people hear Herman Cain they like Herman Cain.” [. . .]Shall we just make it a policy to vote for the candidate most vilified and smeared by the DNC and the liberal media? It's a pretty solid indicator of a candidate's commitment to genuine conservative principles, because the libs and their lapdogs attack those they most fear. Rush awards Sarah Palin the "most feared" title, but adds that Rick Perry and Rick Santorum also give liberals the willies. They don't fear Tim Pawlenty, but if he keeps up the inconvenient truth-telling and caustic tweets maybe that will change:
“When you have somebody who is so likable and so respected on our side and among the American people as a whole, that is clearly making them nervous,” Carmichael added.
@BarackObama sorry to interrupt the European pub crawl, but what was your Medicare plan?And hey, how about that awesome Obama budget? How many votes did it get in the Democrat-controlled Senate? Oh yeah: ZERO. Not one. That's how much of a joke Obama's "leadership" has become. No wonder the liberal media declined to report on the vote.
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.
My thoughts? I think your husband is a smart man.
ReplyDelete"Husband points out that Ryan has no executive experience."
ReplyDeleteAnd? That is only an issue of the Democrat candidate has executive experience. In this case, the only executive experience BHO has was obtained after he was elected president, thus it would be hard to argue that lack of experience is a deal killer for Ryan when it clearly was not four years earlier for BHO.
Unless your husband is actually concerned that the lack of executive experience on Ryan's part would be a valid impediment to him being able to perform adequately as president, in which case I respond that again the comparison is to Obama. It is utterly inconceivable that Ryan could perform with less fore thought, less awareness and concern for the economic consequences of his decisions, less concern for our constitution, less notion of respecting and considering our allies, and less awareness of the actual dangers that our nation faces in the world today.
Clinton trading satellite technologies to the Chinese for campaign contributions was criminally self interested, but as awful as Clinton was in many was, he was a far less damaging president than BHO has been. It turns out that Dustin Hoffman was right, there are more dangerous things a president can due than tramp around with interns. This isn't what he had in mind, but the fellow stumbled into the truth just the same, and we must give him credit for it.
The fact of the matter is, the election of Edward E. Newman would be an improvement, both for our immediate circumstance and for the future of the nation, regardless of his lack of executive experience.
Husband didn't actually say it was a deal killer, but a lack that needs to be considered. He said the same thing about my first choice for the nomination, Mike Pence, who's now planning to get some of that important experience by running for gov in Indiana. We agree with you, that almost anyone looks good compared with what we've got right now. I think he has a point. But yeah, if Ryan ended up as the nominee against Obama there would be no agonizing in the voting booth.
ReplyDeleteBut we're not there yet. So it makes sense to compare Ryan (who probably isn't running anyway, but whatever) to the other GOP possibles. Some have real exec. exp.: Pawlenty, Perry, Palin, Romney (ugh), Cain (in business rather than govt), etc.
Ryan's ability and experience blows Obama out of the water, obviously. As a legislator, he's not the do-nothing, know-nothing newb that Obama was as a US Senator. But now is the time to assess all the possibles.
Well, yes, you wouldn't be arguing it was a deal killer, the Dems would be tempted to do so. I presumed the husband was wondering how one might answer the political argument. I think it is not a workable argument. The question of whether or not the argument is valid is a separate question. I think there is truth to the notion that a governorship is better preparation than a place in Congress, all other things being equal. Compare away, by all means.
ReplyDeleteI would, however, caution us to be wary of the political arguments the left pitches our way. A key example of the double speak that raises my ire would be the 1996 Presidential race, in which the Dems strenuously made the argument that if Bob Dole was serious in running for president, then Bob Dole had to resign from the Senate. Though an effective majority leader, he had to take this step if he was serious about running a campaign, as certainly any man involved in a presidential campaign would necessarily be short changing the American people if he were to keep a valuable senate seat while spending most of his time for a year or more making the run for office. Bob Dole was a straight guy, Bob Dole thought the argument had merit, and Bob Dole resigned his seat in the Senate.
Since then we have seen presidential campaigns involving Senators Joseph Lieberman (VP candidate, Democrat 2000), John F Kerry (Pres. candidate, Democrat 2004), John Edwards (VP candidate, Democrat 2004), Barack Obama (Pres. candidate, Democrat 2008) and Joseph Biden (VP candidate, Democrat 2008), and not one of them resigned their Senate seats during their campaign efforts. Of these five, the senate seat John Edwards held was up for election at the same time as the presidential election. He chose not to run to hold this seat. It was largely thought he would have had a hard time winning re-election, but he did not resign from his seat while participating in the presidential campaign. Five senatorial candidates in twelve years, all Democrats, and not only did they not resign from their seats while campaigning, the issue never even came up.