Thinkin’bout Stuff

Finally!  Someone can tell me why I should vote for Obama.  According to General Clark on Face the Nation:

“… what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgement, you look at his meteoric rise in politics and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together, and who has good judgement in moving forward.”

<snip>

“Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements.  He’s running on his other strengths.  He’s running on strengths of character, on the strength of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgement, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.”

<snip>

“There’s not a learning period in this job.  The next president’s gonna have to step right into the job, he’s gonna have to have the policies there…”

So… instead of experience or concrete solutions, Obama brings:

• Incredible communication skills
• Proven judgement
• Deals with people well
• Understands issues
• Brings people together

Sounds like the qualifications for a Customer Services Rep (CSR).

That aside, assuming we really don’t mind him not having any experience or concrete solutions to problems (beyond taxing the wealthy and increasing the oil supply by taxing big oil (like any tax on oil companies wouldn’t be passed down to you and me, and how does that increase supply?)), assuming these really were the qualifications for president and not a CSR, does Obama have what it takes to be a CSR…  err.. president:

• Incredible communication skills
  • I’ve said it before and I’ve seen nothing to change my view: Obama can not communicate without the aid of a script
  • He visited 57 states? 10,000 people died in one tornado? He sees fallen war heroes in the audience? etc. etc. etc.
• Proven judgement
  • Really?  The depth of a person’s judgement can be inferred from the company he keeps.  Which is why we tell our kids to not hang with drug addicts and delinquents (advice Obama apparently did not heed in his youth… a pattern of poor judgement that continues today)
• Deals with people well
  • Was inclined to give him this one… then I remembered how he keeps dragging race into the campaign while accusing others of dragging it into the campaign.  Accusing people of racism without any evidence does not indicate an ability to deal well with people in my view - check out this clip from CNN – by the way, CNN’s Cafferty (at 2:04 in the clip) all but accused Republicans of being racists and none of their analysts thought Obama’s statement was out of line

• Understands issues
  • Wants to raise capital gains tax out of fairness even if it hurts the economy…
  • Thinks invading Pakistan should be an option but thinks removing Saddam, Uday and Qusay was a bad idea
  • Thinks Iran is a minor threat, no wait, a major threat, no wait, let’s have tea
• Brings people together
  • Can anyone give us an example of Obama bringing people together?

Watch the whole Clark thing here… 

Reader’s Digest asked readers to share one question we would like asked of the presidential candidates.  Here’s mine (which I have been asking here for quite some time):

When most of us are seeking a promotion, we are typically asked to provide a brief history of accomplishments that we believe qualify us for promotion to the next level.  Moving from senator to president certainly qualifies as a promotion.  What do you, Senators McCain and Obama, list among the tangible accomplishments that you personally have achieved in the last 10 years that you would like us to consider when deciding who we will promote this coming November?

Seems like a fair question to me…

Really?

Where does that leave your guy then General Clark? 

From AP:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” Clark said. “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded - that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

Obama, on the other hand, has commanded a wartime squadron, has held several executive level positions, was actually Chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, and served two consecutive terms as King of England.  Oh wait.. that was all a drug induced hallucination from his pot/coke/whatever else days.

In actuality, Obama has not only had no executive level experience, he has not served on any major committees for any significant period of time which, to be fair, is not really his fault since he hasn’t actually held national office for any significant period of time.  In fact, he may even have Edwards beat on the ratio of time present vs. absent during his first term as a senator since, like Edwards 4 years ago, he’s trying to cash in before anyone can see a pattern of voting that would scare away all but the most loony libs.

I suppose Clark’s support for Obama is rooted in his deep respect of the man’s service as a state senator.  Quick.. name one of your state senators and list 5 things he/she accomplished of any note… could you?  I can’t.  Then again, Obama has been campaigning on an *I can read better than the other candidates* platform for over a year now and we still have no idea what he has accomplished in his life that qualifies him to be President of the United States.

President of the United States!  Think about it… we are months away from potentially electing a former drug addict who has old school liberal views, bordering on socialism, to the highest office in this land and the man has no more experience or qualifications for this job then any no-name state senator you never heard of… except, Obama reads real well.  Take away the script, and the depth of his knowledge on a wide range of topics is thinner than a fresh coat of paint on a recycled Yugo.

Update 6/30: Obama is now distancing himself from Clark’s comments, which begs the question: are there any Obama supporters from whom Obama does not feel compelled to distance himself?  If you fly with loons…

Gina Cobb highlights more left hooks from the loons.

First let me start by saying I wish I was in a position to have to worry about one of the new taxes Obama is proposing.  However, just because it doesn’t affect me (or you) does not mean it is:  1) a good idea and/or 2) fair.

Here’s the gist from AP:

The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax “on every dime they make,” while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only “a very small percentage of their income.”

The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all income up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama’s plan, the tax would not apply to incomes between that amount and $250,000. But all annual income above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan.

So, using Obama’s logic, it is fair to tax every dime up to $102,000, then if you make between $102,000 and $250,000, those dimes will not be taxed.  From $250,000 on up, he would start taxing dimes again.

Is this really about fairness, or is this acknowledgement that there are a lot of votes between $102,000 and $250,000 that he doesn’t want to lose and even more votes below $102,000 that he wants to win by sticking it to the rich?

He also took this opportunity to take a swipe at McCain:

Obama also criticized McCain for being open to letting taxpayers invest part of their Social Security payments in private investment accounts.

“Imagine if your security now was tied up with the Dow Jones,” he said, alluding to the recent slide in stock prices. “You wouldn’t feel very confident about the security of your nest egg.”

Really. Hmmm.. let’s see.  Suppose I started investing in the Dow 30 years ago in prep for retirement, what would that look like (highlighted in light blue):

Looks pretty good to me….

Scary how little Obama understands about the stock markets.  From the WSJ:

After Senator Obama let it be known that he’d consider nearly doubling to 28% the current capital gains tax rate of 15%, he had to expect questions. In the Pennsylvania debate, the moderator pointedly asked Mr. Obama why he’d do this, since history has shown that higher rates bring less revenue. Mr. Obama’s response was to take a shot at wealthy hedge fund managers.

From ABC News where you can watch a clip from the debate:

“Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness,” said Obama.

So “fairness”, an arbitrary measure applied based upon your vantage point, is more important than the economy?

And there’s this bit of incoherence from a CNBC interview courtesy of USAToday:

Well, you know, I haven’t given a firm number. Here’s my belief, that we can’t go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent. I would—and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it—and if it, you know—when I talk to people like Warren Buffett or others and I ask them, you know, what’s—how much of a difference is it going to be if it’s 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it’s within that range, then it’s not going to distort, I think, economic decision making.

Which is, of course, another example of Obama without a script.  What the heck did he say?

Essentially what he was saying during that debate is that the negative impact on tax revenue from raising the capital gains tax was outweighed by the need for “fairness”.  

Now we come to learn that investing in the Dow Jones over a lifetime is something to feel insecure about and, by the way, he does not even acknowledge that: 1) you don’t have to invest in the stock markets, there are other “safer” options and 2) it’s our money!  Why shouldn’t we have a say in how it is invested?

The answer is obvious: those of us in the non-elite class can not be trusted to make intelligent decisions with our money and must depend on Mother America to take care of us, with the help of other people’s money.

Be very careful of politicians making decisions about your money based upon their view of fairness, without regard to economic impact, especially when votes are on the line and attempts are made to buy said votes through redistribution of wealth in the name of fairness.

About once a week, we like to lighten things up a bit…  and tonight is MOVIE NIGHT!!!

A different take on some Hollywood classics, courtesy of the cast of Sponge Bob :

I’m a sucker for anything with Gene Kelly.  Here is Gene “Singing in the Rain”:

And with Donald O’Conner performing “Moses Supposes”, check out the dancing about two minutes in… good stuff:

I was trying to find the final scene from “West Side Story” but no luck so far, but this scene foreshadows what is to come, and yes, it always brings a tear.  I remember the first time I saw this movie; I had no idea how it ended and it blew me away.  All the upbeat tunes like “Officer Krumpke” and “America”, and then bam!  It wasn’t until I was in my teens that I understood it was essentially “Romeo & Juliet”:

Speaking of “America”:

We end Movie Night with a bit of humor from Robin Williams:

Thank You and Goodnight!

Found this article on RealClearPolitics that got me thinking.

Maybe McCain is the right choice at the right time.  We have been a country divided for quite some time; Obama talks about uniting us, but words mean nothing without action.  McCain, who is not my ideal candidate, has proven to be a uniter.

Perhaps he is not the ideal candidate for liberal leaners or conservative leaners, but perhaps he is just what our country needs right now.  Perhaps he is the compromise that will allow at least the majority of us to come back together somewhere near middle ground.

You know who we really need to take this country back from?  The extremists!

Be sure to vote for your favorite articles at RealClearPolitics… or you could vote for this one instead

Do Obama’s struggles without the aid of a carefully worded written speech indicate an inability to synthesize cohesive thoughts?

Here’s the latest example of Obama struggling to find the right words to say and missing the mark by quite a bit:

Not only did he appear, once again, to not be able to honestly speak from a set of core beliefs, but his explanation was ludicrous.

Contrast this performance to the preacher-like manner in which he holds sway over large audiences when reading from a script:

In each of the examples shown in the video above, Obama was either reading froma script on a podium or from nearby teleprompters… and frankly doing so quite well.

This is a valid concern.  Can this man do anything more than read what is written?  No matter how well he reads, it won’t help when it comes time to actually lead this country.

Maybe Obama said it best:

To quote Sen. Obama from 2004:

I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job, and I think that, if, I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the senate.  Now there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I’m not one of those people.

He has discounted his experience prior to serving in the senate, which is appropriate, so what experience does that leave us to consider when deciding if this man is ready to be President of the United States?  Are we really going to vote based on how well he reads?

Other interesting examples and a similar take from Gina Cobb here.

Be sure to vote for your favorite articles at RealClearPolitics… or you could vote for this one instead