So you are saying he did not have a successful gig managing a baseball
team and did not serve successfully as a Texas governor? That's funny, I
was there during his terms as governor, he did a pretty good job even if he
did compromise a bit too much with the other party -- which they apparently
don't appreciate given the degree of opprobrium slung his way despite those
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
He was 'successful' managing a baseball team in large
measure because he successfully lobbied to have a
ball park built for his team at public expense. Basicly
welfare for the wealthy.
Of course he's not the only one. Art Model made out even
better at the expense of Maryland taxpayers, as did the
owners of the new Cleveland Browns and the old Cleveland
While his top executive experience is light this electoral process and his
specific record tell us reams about the man and his judgment.
We know that Rev. Wright was a esteemed mentor and inspiration for 20 years
but was willingly discarded when politically expedient
We know that he was willing to cut, run and accept defeat in Iraq when the
surge or 30,000 troops could and did turn the tide and place the country and
our efforts well on the way to success.
We know that his cut and run policy would have as well given the Iraq al
Qaeda a major victory instead of the sound defeat they received.
We know from the get go that he was in favor of leaving Saddam in power,
free to continue his murder , plunder and disregard for 17 UN sanctions. To
also continue the corrupt oil for food UN program and to watch over a ever
strained Iraq embargo/containment effort.
We know that he does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.
We know he's in favor of significant U.S. Afghanistan military escalation in
spite of the stark historical minefield Afghanistan has held for world
We know that he readily confused the propriety of countries simply talking
to each other with the power and prestige of state visits
We know he has had no significant legislative achievements in either Senator
We know he had a long hard fought primary race and that he barely squeaked
out a victory.
We know he's claimed great skill or the ability at working across party
lines with no evidence or proof of such efforts ever via his previous
legislative and/or voting record.
We know he has a very ambitious spending and/or Gov. program desires but
only feels a very small percentage of the population should or would pay for
We know (thankfully) that he has a ever evolving energy policy but $150
billion over 10 years on a vague green energy plan is more posture than
possible benefit. Albeit good publicly funded jobs till the money runs out.
We know he claimed public campaign financing as right, proper and desired
but decided it was only right and proper for everyone else when it served
We know he wants to spend more on education just like every other democrat
in recent memory (teachers vote)... if a lot of money doesn't work more will
definitely make a difference.
We know he is known as a great orator but yet has given few if any memorable
or significant lines.
We know he had a close personal, public and financial relationship with a
now convicted corrupt felon but got a nifty house out of the relationship.
We know that once his political career began to take hold his wife was
suddenly worth nearly $300,000 a yr. in a community PR position at the
Chicago University hospital.......health care dollars seriously at work.
We know he believes charity begins and ends at home as he has a half brother
living on a dollar a month in a shack in Kenya. Apparently he will share
neither his time or good fortune with less fortunate distant family members.
We know a lot, I'd even suggest we know enough......Rod
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:53:06 -0700, Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Getting out of a war we never should have gotten into is not "accepting
defeat", nor does giving the Shiites their turn on top qualify as "success".
There were no Al Qaida in Iraq until we provided them with a tempting
This whole hoohaw over Iraq started when the US ambassador hinted to
Saddam that we didn't care if he invaded Kuwait. Everything else stems
from that. And don't forget that we armed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war
- he was a "good guy" then.
If Pakistan continues to harbor and support the Taliban, who made Al Qaida
look like pussycats and harbored those responsible for 9/11, I'd violate
more than their borders :-).
There's some truth to that, but I don't think historical warfare bears
much resemblance to the technology in use today. The problem lies more in
the sanctuaries provided to the Taliban by civilians in both Pakistan and
Afghanistan and our reluctance to hold them responsible.
There are only three possible responses to fanatics. Give in to them,
convert them, or eradicate them. I hope we don't do the first, the second
is as close to impossible as makes no difference, and we don't seem to
have the stomach for the third. I suppose we could try blockading the
whole area and letting nothing, repeat nothing, in or out, but the expense
of that probably rules it out. Any other ideas?
We know that al Queda followed us into Iraq. We know that only
any significant number of Iraqis supported al Queda was because they
had a common enemy--US.
We know that since we occupied Iraq, we have been fighting against
Iraqis over control of their own country. We know that the indigenous
Iraqi reiligious extremists are Shia, sworn enemies of al Queda, so
that even if Iraq were to become another Islamic Republic, it would be
one opposed to al Queda. It was also be Arab, thus predisposed to
not ally with Iran, unless facing a common enemy, such as-- US.
We know that, while the Taliban and Al Queda were still undefeated in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, he opposed starting a new war, with a
that did not harbor or support al Queda or bin Laden and which was
demonstrably not a threat to the US or even the weakest of its
We know he made that statement when Pakistan was ruled by one of the
Worlds worst dictators, and when Pakistan harbored and protected
al Queda and Osama bin Laden.
We also know that the present administration did not respect Iraqi
Sovereignty despite the fact that Iraq did not harbor al Queda or
bin Laden and had not been implicated in any attacks on Americans
outside of it's own borders for at least ten years.
We know that the present administration did not respect Iraqi
sovereignty even after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, replacing
the Iraq coalition government with an American dictator who blocked
self government by the Iraqis and systematically destroyed the nations
infrastructure plunging the country into a civil war.
We know that the battleground against al Quaida is in Afghanistan
You mean like claiming that negotiations over a good will visit
by the President of Niger to Baghdad was actually a negotiation
to purchase more yellowcake, despite the fact that Iraq had 500
plus tonnes of yellowcake stored at Tuwaitha for the past 20 years,
and had SOLD 30 to 50 tonnes of it just a few years earlier?
I recall GWB saying that if he had a good energy policy in place ten
ago we would be much better off today. He neglected to mention that
we had such a policy thirty years ago, but then his party won the
house and killed it.
Well. I'm not _opposed_ to obtaining the host country's permission,
Just not willing to accept inaction without it.
I also doubt that incursions into Waziristan are going to find
bin Laden. He is more likely in a major city where his couriers
have ready access to global communications.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:21:39 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
I'm not sure I understand your comment.
I didn't say that Obama was qualified, I just meant that the last guy
wasn't either. IMO there were a lot of other Presidents who weren't
qualified. Some were good some were not.
BTW, how do you become qualified for that job anyway?
It seems to me the only truly qualified applicant is one who has done
the job previously. Even then, some of them sucked at it.
I agree 100% :-)
I'm reading a lot of discussion about "qualifications" of candidates,
and noticing that no one seems to want to name anything that their
favorite candidate is qualified to /do/. (Already, I've started
discounting negatives aimed at the 'other' candidate as "cheap shots"
and the sources as "cheap shootists").
One of the qualities I look for is "leadership" - and I very selfishly
ask whether the candidate is able (and likely) to lead the country in
the direction /I/ think it should go.
So I guess that ties into "vision" - whether the candidate shares my
notions of what is really worth doing, and whether the candidate is
capable of meaningfully considering the consequences of his actions
/before/ he acts, and how far ahead the candidate is capable of
projecting his/her plans.
I care about how much the candidate respects others as individuals,
groups, and nations - because I find that tells me worlds about how
fairness and justice will or will not be a part of that candidate's
I look for signs of good judgment - both in terms of personal decisions
and in terms of staff brought in to help produce high-quality decisions.
And (not at all) lastly, I care hugely about the basic integrity of the
Just about anyone can reach down and find a handful of mud (right by
their very own feet!) and throw it. I'll note in passing that some
people seem to have more mud around 'em than others - and I'll share a
bit of old Iowa farm wisdom:
"He who throws mud loses ground."
That's fine, you are establishing your care-abouts and what you think is
important to you. The underlying question is what that direction means to
the country as a whole. There are some citizens who feel that the
direction the country should go is to have "the rich" (people who make more
money than the citizens looking for this) pay for various "rights"
and "entitlements" for the citizens seeking that direction. There are also
citizens who view the government as the solution to all problems and seek
greater government involvement in nearly all aspects of life -- that's
certainly not the principles upon which the nation was founded and was a
direction that the founders wisely eschewed and established curbs in the
constitution to prevent. Unfortunately, over the intervening years, too
many have found "loopholes" that have allowed increasing encroachment by
the government into private lives and businesses.
OK, so, where does that leave the field of choices?
i.e, "anybody who points out anything negative about my guy/gal is just
slinging mud -- when I'm doing it, I'm evaluating the signs of good
judgment and personal values" Got it.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
I don't feel a need to claim any ground, but I'd like to maintain my
self-respect. Like most people, I have a list of things that are
important to me and strongly influence my decision-making process.
Others have different lists. I don't have any problem with that, and I
would hope that there is a fair amount of overlap (aka "shared values").
General agreement (for me, at least) is easy. It's the details of where,
how, and when we draw the line that cause disagreement. Perhaps more
discussion of first principles would be healthy.
It's to that end that I keep these two pages on my web site:
Are you asking me to choose for you - or are you asking me to present my
final choice for the coming election? I can't/won't choose for you, and
I haven't arrived at a final choice yet. I supported Obama's effort to
become a presidential candidate, but I'll cast my vote for whomever I
think best on election day - but I already know that I will not be
voting a "straight ticket" either way.
It would appear that you don't - more like "anybody who attempts to
substitute 'attack' for 'presenting a better approach' - and especially
when the attack constitutes a "red herring", "projection", or "straw
man" - loses standing with me. An attack based on falsehood is a
disqualifier in my book.
If I had meant to say the words you tried to put into my mouth, I would
have said them myself.
"Projection", as listed above, is the act of ascribing words or intent
to another person who never said those words or held that intent, and
then attacking the person for saying or intending that.
Was not trying to box you into saying how you would vote, I was more
interested in your assessment of basic integrity of the candidates. On the
one side, you have a person who has spent a large portion of the past
several years opposing his own president and siding with the opposition
party, yet is now being excoriated by that same party as being "more of the
same". His opposition to some fairly fundamental principles of his own
party and reveling in the adoration of the media and opposition as
a "maverick" are somewhat troubling. On the other side, you have a Chicago
political machine politician who is trying to campaign as not being a
Chicago political machine politician. He has shown a willingness to throw
whomever he needs to under the bus: his grandmother, his former associates
and supporters, and the pastor with whom he claimed to have a close
personal relationship for the past 20 years. Doesn't say a lot for
From my point of view, I'm looking at who will be doing the least damage:
both to the economy and to the constitutional underpinnings of the country.
From that standpoint, the Senator from Illinois is demonstrating that he
will fail on both counts: his calls for raising taxes while demonstrating
an ignorance of basic economics is going to raise havoc with the economy;
his support for laws that usurp the second amendment, despite his present
protestations to the contrary (he just calls them "common-sense" gun
measures now) show a disregard for the constitutional freedoms in the bill
of rights affirms for US citizens. The harassment by his campaign of
member of the press, the ABC reporter in Denver and the reporter trying to
obtain what should be public information on his associations with Bill
Ayers are disturbing and call into question how he will deal with dissent
during his administration should he get elected and his interpretation of
first amendment rights.
I apologize for the tone of my comment, that was out of line. I have
become tired of listening to those on the left who truly do engage in
projection, attributing motives to the current administration because that
they have demonstrated is how they would behave. I've gotten a little
sensitive to statements that label criticisms of policy and approach
as "personal attacks". I don't think that was your intent.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.