October 11, 2008

Response

Usually the weekends here are filled with nonsense and frivolity. I asked my readers what qualifications The Obama had to be President and you told me. I will use a post for my rebuttal, as answering you all in the comments is too long.

In summation we should vote for The Obama because:

Randy says we should vote for him because he graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law. And because he is a good politician. Funny, I know a President that graduated from Yale and Harvard. He had better grades that Al Gore or John Kerry. He owned several successful businesses. He was a governor of a very large state. For most Democrats he is described as a complete buffoon and moron. Please meet GW Bush. So Randy, is a good education a qualification or not? Oh, FYI pigs are not people, they cannot be elected to any Federal Office [sarcasm alert]. I guess your real reason is that he is nota Republican? See below.

Sammy, who believes Communism might not be so bad, says we should vote for The Obama "Because he's not a Republican". Voting a straight ticket brands you as a narrow-minded and politically naive. I think we should look for the best person for the job. It is thinking like yours that helps elect representatives like Cynthia McKinney and David Duke, both idiots with extreme views. There was once a guy running for election as mayor in my hometown. He could not read. He got a lot of votes because he was, as one guy told me, "the representative of my party, and my party is always right". There is not really any more to say on that subject. Besides anyone who thinks a Communist would be better than any Republican displays an uncommon ignorance of history.

Momentofchoice tells us "What church someone attends is not important to me, what they do every day of the week is and how they conduct themselves and treat other human beings is important". I would add that the people an individual surrounds himself with is also important. If your child was hanging around with drug users and criminals I think you would not say that was OK, even if his behavior seemed OK and he treated other humans in an exemplary manner. We are judged by our associations. I am pretty sure if a given candidate (this is an example people) attended a church that preached the destruction of the Jews by any means possible or a mosque that preached radical Islam and supported terrorist attacks like 9/11 you would not say a person's church is inconsequential. It is a matter of degree. When we start parsing morals we all lose. Sorry, but Obama sat in that church for 20 years and heard the Reverend Wright preach against Jews, whites and the United States of America. He is as bigoted as any member of the KKK. I am sure offended. He is a close associate of a known criminal and terrorists. That should at least give you pause. MOC, every conservative in this country has first and second thoughts about McCain. Like your pundit, few of us support him. He is a liberal Republican. Most of us will hold our nose and vote for the lessor of two evils. And what does driving a Jetta have to do with anything? We have a Ford, A Honda, a Chevy and a Dodge. Does that make me an anarchist? Viva Sacco and Vanzetti!

Judy tells us he "helped deliver", "supported", "sponsored and co-sponsored" and 'voted for". What acts and laws did he write? How do you account for his preponderance of "present" votes? Where has he worked with those of the other party for the common good? Why, if he "He supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons" is he protesting vigorously (including threatened legal action) ads from the NRA claiming he supports gun control?

Just passing through tells us Clinton was just a governor of a small state and did pretty well. How do the same Democrats cry that Palin is too inexperienced to be elected, that she has no foreign policy expertise. How much did Clinton have? How much did Carter have? OK, Carter is a bad example since he is arguably the worst President in history. He also says we should vote for Obama because "He's a smart...smart guy". He goes on to indicate Bush is stupid. Again, I guess Ivy League educations only make Democrats smart. OK, JPT you claim that Obama is the man because he does not have a long political resume. You say Clinton was pretty successful because he was a small state governor, then spend a whole paragraph on Palin. Just what disqualifies her? Why does "she {have] no business in that seat"? You can dislike her for her politics, but that does not make her unqualified. Here is your hypocrisy award.

James is right. Not a single person has outlined Obama's past or given me a real reason to vote for him beyond he is a Democrat, or he is smart. No one has told me why his past associations are not an indication of his political beliefs. Comments remain open.

No comments:

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005