Pretty interesting...
*Our Canadian neighbors up north have been observing the three ring
circus act known as the US presidential primaries. Divorced from
meaningless party loyalties and other hysteria, here's an editorial that
addresses ... brace yourself ... the qualifications/experience that
the dumocrats and some republicans offer. From hillary's phantom 35
years to Obama's ZERO years of experience and achievements it's absurd
that these twits are leading contenders for the US Presidency. WHY
HASN'T THE U.S. MEDIA PUBLISHED ANYTHING SIMILAR?
**Democrat or Republican? The question is shockingly easy!
Theo Caldwell, National Post (Canada) Wednesday, December 26, 2007
An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one
option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too
easy, it is human nature to become suspicious.
This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised.
American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to
the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know
who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the
leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious
choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the
Democrats
has any business being president.
This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the
Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential
Paucity evinced by the Democratic field. "Not ready for prime time," goes
the
vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are.
Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten essays to an
already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO sightings,
dueling celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat from
America's global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it
becomes clear that these are profoundly unserious individuals.
To be sure, there has been a fair amount of rubbish and rhubarb on the
Republican side (Ron Paul, call your office), but even a cursory review
of the legislative and professional records of the leading contenders from
each party reveals a disparity akin to adults competing with children.
For the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani served as a two-term mayor of New
York City, turning a budget deficit into a surplus and taming what was
thought to be an ungovernable metropolis. Prior to that, he held the
third-highest rank in the Reagan Justice Department, obtaining over 4,000
convictions.
Mitt Romney, before serving as governor of Massachusetts, founded a
venture capital firm that created billions of dollars in shareholder
value and he then went on to save the Salt Lake City Olympics. While
much is made of Mike Huckabee's history as a Baptist minister, he was also a
governor for more than a decade and, while Arkansas is hardly a "cradle
of presidents," it has launched at least one previous chief executive to
national office. John McCain's legislative and military career spans
five decades, with half that time having been spent in the Congress. Even
Fred Thompson, whose excess of nonchalance has transformed his
once-promising
campaign into nothing more than a theoretical possibility, has more
experience in the U.S. Senate than any of the leading Democratic
candidates.
With just over one term as a Senator to her credit, Hillary Clinton
boasts the most extensive record of the potential Democratic nominees. In
that
time, Senator Clinton cannot claim a single legislative accomplishment
of note, and she is best known lately for requesting $1-million from
Congress for a museum to commemorate Woodstock.
Barack Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in the
Senate, having previously served as an Illinois state legislator and, as
Clinton
has correctly pointed out, has done nothing but run for president since
he first arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of
Pakistan and fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for illegal
aliens,
Obama has shown that he is not the fellow to whom the nation ought to
hike the nuclear football.
John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American people
will elect anyone to Congress -- once. From his $1,200 haircuts to his
personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the porch of his 28,000-square-foot
home, purchased with the proceeds of preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant
cerebral palsy, Edwards is living proof that history can play out as
tragedy and farce simultaneously.
Forget for a moment all that you believe about public policy. Discard
Your notions about taxes and Iraq, free trade and crime, and consider solely
the experience of these two sets of candidates. Is there any serious
issue that you would prefer to entrust to a person with the Democrats'
experience, rather than that of any of the Republicans?
Does this decision not become unsettlingly simple?
Copyright (c) 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks
Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
-
This is sent only to those whose level of maturity qualifies them to
relate to it...
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to
realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
......Ronald Reagan
*Our Canadian neighbors up north have been observing the three ring
circus act known as the US presidential primaries. Divorced from
meaningless party loyalties and other hysteria, here's an editorial that
addresses ... brace yourself ... the qualifications/experience that
the dumocrats and some republicans offer. From hillary's phantom 35
years to Obama's ZERO years of experience and achievements it's absurd
that these twits are leading contenders for the US Presidency. WHY
HASN'T THE U.S. MEDIA PUBLISHED ANYTHING SIMILAR?
**Democrat or Republican? The question is shockingly easy!
Theo Caldwell, National Post (Canada) Wednesday, December 26, 2007
An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one
option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too
easy, it is human nature to become suspicious.
This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised.
American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to
the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know
who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the
leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious
choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the
Democrats
has any business being president.
This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the
Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential
Paucity evinced by the Democratic field. "Not ready for prime time," goes
the
vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are.
Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten essays to an
already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO sightings,
dueling celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat from
America's global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it
becomes clear that these are profoundly unserious individuals.
To be sure, there has been a fair amount of rubbish and rhubarb on the
Republican side (Ron Paul, call your office), but even a cursory review
of the legislative and professional records of the leading contenders from
each party reveals a disparity akin to adults competing with children.
For the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani served as a two-term mayor of New
York City, turning a budget deficit into a surplus and taming what was
thought to be an ungovernable metropolis. Prior to that, he held the
third-highest rank in the Reagan Justice Department, obtaining over 4,000
convictions.
Mitt Romney, before serving as governor of Massachusetts, founded a
venture capital firm that created billions of dollars in shareholder
value and he then went on to save the Salt Lake City Olympics. While
much is made of Mike Huckabee's history as a Baptist minister, he was also a
governor for more than a decade and, while Arkansas is hardly a "cradle
of presidents," it has launched at least one previous chief executive to
national office. John McCain's legislative and military career spans
five decades, with half that time having been spent in the Congress. Even
Fred Thompson, whose excess of nonchalance has transformed his
once-promising
campaign into nothing more than a theoretical possibility, has more
experience in the U.S. Senate than any of the leading Democratic
candidates.
With just over one term as a Senator to her credit, Hillary Clinton
boasts the most extensive record of the potential Democratic nominees. In
that
time, Senator Clinton cannot claim a single legislative accomplishment
of note, and she is best known lately for requesting $1-million from
Congress for a museum to commemorate Woodstock.
Barack Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in the
Senate, having previously served as an Illinois state legislator and, as
Clinton
has correctly pointed out, has done nothing but run for president since
he first arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of
Pakistan and fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for illegal
aliens,
Obama has shown that he is not the fellow to whom the nation ought to
hike the nuclear football.
John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American people
will elect anyone to Congress -- once. From his $1,200 haircuts to his
personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the porch of his 28,000-square-foot
home, purchased with the proceeds of preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant
cerebral palsy, Edwards is living proof that history can play out as
tragedy and farce simultaneously.
Forget for a moment all that you believe about public policy. Discard
Your notions about taxes and Iraq, free trade and crime, and consider solely
the experience of these two sets of candidates. Is there any serious
issue that you would prefer to entrust to a person with the Democrats'
experience, rather than that of any of the Republicans?
Does this decision not become unsettlingly simple?
Copyright (c) 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks
Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
-
This is sent only to those whose level of maturity qualifies them to
relate to it...
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to
realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
......Ronald Reagan
Love is the answer