This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
OK readers, I hope you’re depressed today. I truly hope that you’re in desperate need of a good laugh because I’m about to cheer you up. Get ready to laugh.
John H. Hinderaker is a lawyer and a conservative blogger at the Power Line weblog. In a recent post titled “The Importance of Being Careful“, Mr. Hinderaker felt compelled to provide President Elect Obama some free advice. Read the following excerpt for yourself and enjoy the irony.
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.
I will now pause for a moment and allow you to pull yourselves together. Wipe those tears of laughter off your face.
You must be joking Mr. Hinderaker. President Bush is neither a skilled speaker nor a thoughtful one. Even many Republicans admit that much. To label George Bush as a dynamic and ‘precision’ speaker instantly reveals your own blind partisan and one-sided views.
Please allow me to assist you, Mr. Hinderaker, with presenting your case. Perhaps the message you really meant to convey was that Obama is a skilled speaker, but his message is void of meaning and substance. I’m positive that is the idea you attempted to communicate. However, you presented this thesis in the context of comparing Obama with Bush. In that regard, all roads lead to failure. President Bush is not only a horrible speaker, he lacks the ability to formulate his thoughts in a coherent manner. And worse, he utterly lacks the ability to connect with his audience. President Bush had 8 years to study President Reagan’s style and to learn from it. Bush failed.
Here’s one small sample in a sea of evidence that proves my point.
Joe “the plumber”. I’m so sick of still hearing about Joe the plumber. He even has a Wiki page now. Stop it people. The election is over already.
I won’t be able to forgive McCain or the Republicans for catapulting this irrelevant person and now immaterial concept into the American day-to-day conversation. The anxious Republicans, grasping at any straw in sight during the election season, latched on to Joe the plumber like stink on a monkey. They didn’t seem to care about Joe or his past. All that mattered was that Joe disagreed with Obama’s tax policy, calling it Marxist. For Joe, spreading the wealth around was not an acceptable plan.
Fair enough! But wait! Here’s some news flash the Republicans should have researched first. Joe ‘the Obama-is-a Marxist plumber’ was on welfare. Twice! How pathetic.
How’s that for spreading the wealth? Joe was and is confused. Accepting welfare from the government is spreading the wealth – my wealth, your wealth, taxpayers’ wealth. Well, I for one don’t want to spread my wealth around to anyone who doesn’t appreciate it. Joe is the first to be blacklisted. In fact, I want my portion of his welfare money back.
Hey Joe! Here’s some sound economic advice for you. If you go on welfare, you should shut the hell up. You have no right to talk about spreading the wealth. And here’s another news flash. Joe still has a tax lien of $1,200 against him in Ohio. → Source
McCain, during a rally, called Joe an American hero and his role model. Seriously? Someone should fire McCain’s campaign aids for not researching this well. Oh, wait, someone did fire his aids – the American people.
Also. Remember when McCain was looking for Joe during one of his rallies but could not find him? Well, that wasn’t Joe’s fault. He had told McCain’s aids that he’d be there between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm.
Finally, how is McCain’s approval of government bailout not wealth distribution? Defend it if you can. I dare you.
A few days ago, I wrote a post about how much I dislike receiving calls from the 2 Presidential campaigns. I absolutely abhor all the non-sense and promises they convey in these messages. I even threatened to vote for Ron Paul if they continue their stupid, boring, and monotonous robocalls.
It appears that I’m not alone in having that sentiment. Politicians are beginning to get the message, and some have finally stepped forward with alternative solutions. Case in point: Zane Starkewolf is a Republican who’s running in California’s First District. He’s a really cool guy. Not only is he a self-professed “Green Republican” (what the hell does that mean? Is he not a Red Republican?), he is a ninth-level elven warrior from Dungeons and Dragons! Wow, that’s the embodiment of coolness.
He can’t be any more cool, can he? Apparently he can. His political robocalls are the bomb. Check this out.
Watch this video. This is Sarah Palin’s policy statement on US budget.
For anyone who doesn’t know about genetics research, just google it and you’ll see a vast array of publications and discoveries about the topic. Fruit fly research is the standard by which many genetic and birth defects as well as molecular biology are studied today. In fact, fruit flies have been used for protein, cell and genetic research for around 100 years. It is precisely this type of research that brings hope to areas such as autism.
I concede that over 50% of US population is unaware of the importance of fruit fly research in the areas of genetics and molecular biology. As the mother of a Down Syndrome child, however, Sarah Palin sure doesn’t seem very educated about genetic defects and research. Doesn’t anyone fact-check her speeches? Anyone? It is clear that she’s been busy recently. She’s definitely sacrificing her family for her country – and I truly mean that in a positive and respectful way.
The Republican media machine jumped into action by saying that she was only speaking of fruit fly research as it applies to agricultural, not genetics. Please, don’t insult my intelligence! Watch the video again and listen to her words. Her condemnation of fruit fly research came in the following context: ”. . . sometimes these dollars go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good.“
Oh, I know. Perhaps she was only objecting to fruit fly research in Paris, France. She would have no objections if it was conducted in the US. We hate the French . . . don’t we? I forget what our official policy on the French is these days. Do we like them or not? It’s so hard to keep track.
I have also read (on various blogs) that Palin does not believe in genetic research due to her religious views and, hence, her objection to it. I don’t believe that. She’s much more intelligent than many on the left portray her. I assume her children receive vaccinations which, after all, is a direct result of genetic and protein research.
I love this bit from Rachel Maddow. Both she and Keith Olbermann are a little too far to the left for my taste, but I enjoy Rachel’s funny and sometimes sassy remarks.
Here’s a good link to learn more about fruit fly research:
As a registered independent, I’m an unwilling recipient of daily assault of calls from both Presidential campaigns. I have a message for both groups:
STOP CALLING ME OR I WILL VOTE FOR RON PAUL.
Democrats call to inform me about Obama’s clean coal technology plan, and that it will create thousands of jobs. BS. Obama stole this clean coal idea from McCain. The only good thing is that they only call me once a week.
Republicans call several times a week to tell me about Bill Ayers. Stop it already! That horse is not only dead, it’s rotting. You’ve milked it for all it was worth. It’s not effective anymore, and no one (other than your own Republican base) cares.
Hasn’t anyone told both of you? Those undecided voters you’re still so fiercely targeting . . . they’ve decided already. The only undecided voters are either in insane asylums or in jail, and they can’t vote.
In August of this year, a report surfaced about Joe Biden’s net worth. Many newspapers including The Boston Globe printed the story. According to the articles, Joe Biden’s net worth is . . . not much! OpenSecrets.orgestimates Biden’s average net worth is $-52,493, which ranks him as the second least wealthy Senator. Most Democrats have presented this in a positive light and as an achievement, implying that Biden is an average ordinary ‘joe’ like the rest of the middle class folks.
Please allow me to disagree. Joe Biden is a 35 year veteran of the Senate. Yes, I understand he’s endured tragedies in his life and that he has remained a down-to-earth person. I commend him for that. However, the point is that a senior Senator with access to a tremendous amount of information and resources (that the rest of us don’t) should have been able to successfully capitalize on it without violating ethics or insider trading regulations.
Think through the logic with me. I am not alone in the belief that balancing the US budget should adhere to many of the guidelines that responsible individuals and families follow. Increasing spending in one area should correspond with either a decrease in other spending or an increase in income. All of us responsible citizens must either balance our check books at the end of the month or carry reasonable debt that is likely to be paid off in a meaningful time frame. Carrying large amounts of liability without a corresponding steady (and potential) increase in assets is not only an unsustainable long term strategy, it is downright detrimental to the stability of our families. That’s precisely the reason so many American families are in financial trouble. Under a larger umbrella, the same is true in the case of our national security and stability. Carrying unreasonable deficit endangers our country’s economic future.
Further, we should demand from our elected officials in the executive and legislative branches to remain relentless in their pursuit of creating, discovering and employing every potential opportunity to advance prosperity, education and stability of all citizens of this country. No stone should remain unturned in this endeavor. No good ideas should be spared in seeking this goal.
Here’s my issue with Biden’s net worth and those who tout this as a positive phenomenon. In any job interview, one must prove that he/she has experience in a related area, and that he/she has achieved success in implementing similar projects. For an elected official to be trusted with the country’s economic matters, there must be proof that he/she has been able to achieve personal prosperity. Having reached middle class status is insufficient. Biden’s annual salary automatically places him in the middle class.
None of us wants to live in an average America. We all want to live in an exceptional and prosperous America – a country where poverty strikes only those who are unwilling to work and strive for a better life. Who can lead the country in that direction? Only a person who has proven that he/she has achieved the same on a smaller personal scale. Biden has not proven that he can take advantage of the vast opportunities available to him as a Congressman to advance his net worth beyond the level of an average middle class individual. I am in no way implying that he should engage in shady and questionable transactions. My point is that working 35 years in one of the most powerful offices in the world naturally brings with it many opportunities: speaking engagements, books deals (which he has done), investment opportunities, etc.
I reject any argument that perhaps Biden does not have aspirations of getting wealthy. That is not the point. If you seek a job opportunity to teach others how to stay organized, you must provide proof that you are in fact an organized person yourself. If you interview for a personal trainer position, you must be a fit person yourself. If you plan to manage people’s money as a financial advisor, you must prove that you are not using food stamps for your own family.
Therefore, I conclude that Joe Biden lacks the necessary vision, drive or expertise to positively advance the country economically. I don’t believe I’m unreasonable in my expectation. If you disagree, leave me a comment.
I will begin this post just as I did my previous one about the Presidential debate last week.
I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I side with Democrats on many issues. I side with Republicans on many others. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for in November.
I am not going to evaluate any specific topics, points or responses. I’ll let others do the analysis and mudslinging. Here’s what I saw.
Sarah Palin’s game plan was to defend Palin. She had a horrible week leading to the debate. She had no choice but to make up for it. She did not disappoint. She performed spectacularly. If you read my previous post on the first Presidential debate, you know that I was impressed by Obama’s ability to address the moderator as well as McCain by looking at both of them. Palin executed the same ability perfectly by addressing the moderator and her opponent. She looked comfortable, had a smile on her face most of the time, and did not hesitate as she has in previous interviews. Biden looked as bad as McCain did – old, stiff, angry. The coaching she received in the past few days was clearly very effective. Good for her.
Joe Biden didn’t seem to have a game plan. Either he was not prepared for this debate or Palin performed so well that made Biden look bad. I have no doubt that if the format of the debate was different in a way to allow for detailed back and forth exchanges, Palin would not have performed as well. But Biden knew the format. It was his debate to lose. And he did.
Experience v.s. new blood stood out as the theme of this debate. Experience did not benefit Biden. He relied on his record in Congress, and he bet his VP nomination on the idea that the average American viewer might actually give a darn about the past or about meaningless statistics. Wrong move, Biden! Palin may not have presented many details on anything, but that was actually the right plan. We all know that VPs are virtual no-bodies. They are merely there to help the real Presidential nominee. The average American wants to hear specifics from and learn the record of Presidential nominees, not from VP nominees. I was watching CNN’s reaction meter of undecided men and women voters. Almost every time Biden talked about his record in Congress, he flat-lined the graph. No one cares. Palin achieved the same reaction when she talked about her experience as mayor and governor.
At the end, I know that VP debates are not decisive or consequential. Not much is gained or lost by them.
I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am not an independent – I don’t even know what that means. I side with Democrats on many issues. I side with Republicans on many others. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for in November.
I watched the first Presidential debate with a clarity and a sense of objectiveness that most people are unable to exert. Most Americans are already committed to their own political party’s candidate. I am not! I don’t belong to one particular party.
I am not going to evaluate any specific topics, points or responses. I’ll let others do the analysis and mudslinging. Here’s what I saw.
It’s not about who won the debate. It seems as though every news and program anchor asks the same question: who won the debate? who won the debate? That’s a childish view of the intent of these debates. It’s not about who won the debate. It’s about 2 entirely different ideas. First, it’s about better understanding each candidate’s position and plans. This mostly applies to undecided voters like me. If you’re an already committed voter, watching these debates are a complete waste of time for you. You’re not changing your mind. Fox News conducted a poll that gave McCain the winning edge by over 80% on the debate. MSNBC gave a smilier edge to Obama. Do you see what I mean? Second, it’s about how each candidate can perform under pressure. They were both well-rehearsed. They both had strong points and they both bended the truth to their side. Neither candidate committed any major blunders, although both missed great opportunities.
Body Language and demeanor of both candidates was very telling. I was impressed by Obama’s cool-under-pressure appearance and performance. He demonstrated substantial presence by looking at McCain, addressing him directly and calling him by name. I was disappointed that McCain did not do the same. He’s been around a long time and has much deeper debate expertise than Obama does. I want my next President to look members of Congress, United Nations and foreign leaders in the eyes and address them – especially in adversarial situations. McCain appeared incapable of thinking on his feet, addressing an audience and debating his opponent at the same time. He only looked at the moderator while sporting smiles of disapproval at Obama. It looked uncomfortable.
Speaking of Obama addressing McCain directly by his first name, many Republicans mounted objections that doing so was an indication of disrespect. Seriously? Since when did you Republicans become so sensitive? Have you ever listened to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Liddy or Savage? Stop your adolescent whining. No one likes to see grown people cry and nag.
Giving Credit where it’s due was performed masterfully by Obama. Half a dozen or so times, Obama mentioned that McCain is correct or that he agrees with McCain. Obama would then proceed to outline the areas where they did not agree. I view that as an uncommon ability among politicians to give credit where credit is due. Republicans quickly produced a video of Obama saying to McCain that he’s right. They’re using it as proof that even Obama thinks McCain’s policies and plans are on the right path. Please! Republicans may be able to fool members of their own party, but don’t insult my intelligence. I saw the debate and I know the context in which Obama gave credit to McCain. For undecided voters, this Republican tactic is backfiring.
Experience v.s. opinion stood out as the theme of this debate. I view McCain as the tough guy who brings a lot of detail to the table and negotiates from a point of strength. I view Obama as a consensus-builder whose approach is the big picture philosophy. While watching the debate, it occurred to me that Obama really doesn’t have any specific mentionable experience in anything. He has opinions, objectives and plans. McCain, on the other hand, has been around a long time. He’s lived through it all. He can draw on experience. Again, I was profoundly disappointed that McCain did not draw more attention to his life experiences.
Obama may be the consensus-building negotiator, but McCain’s reach across the isle over the years is undeniable. He hasn’t always voted with his party. It’s unfortunate that he did not capitalize more on this strength. He lost a great opportunity.
After the debate, I flipped through Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. Rudy Giuliani analyzed the debate on Fox News. He was spot on. It is fairly clear to me that the Republican party nominated the wrong person. Rudy should have been their man. Is it too late to switch?
Posted by jmjorat 
RSS Feed This Blog
