Reply With Quote
Gee when is the last time that happened? When both the President and VP have died?
The cast of characters
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Send an email to Thomas Sowell
Perhaps nothing so captures the superficial, frivolous and irresponsible spirit of our times like the sudden boomlet for Barack Obama as a candidate for President of the United States.
He is a bright, personable and articulate young man but what has he ever actually accomplished that would qualify him for the highest office in the nation and the leadership of the free world?
U.S. Democratic Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) speaks at a rally in support of Democratic California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides in Los Angeles October 27, 2006. Angelides faces in bent California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in the November 7 election. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson (UNITED STATES)
This is no criticism of Senator Obama. He has been in the Senate only a couple of years. Maybe a decade from now he will have crafted enough important legislation, or distinguished himself in some other way, as to be someone worth considering for President. But today, just because he is fluent, smooth and black?
Similarly for Congressman Harold Ford, who is running for the Senate in Tennessee. However moderate he may seem, his election could turn the Senate over to extremists like Ted Kennedy & Co.
Both Ford and Obama are probably better than most Congressional Democrats, but that is a very small claim in a high-tax party that has been irresponsible on national defense for decades and has fought against even modest attempts to control illegal immigration.
Contrary to what you might think from the way the media cover politics, elections are not about the careers of politicians but about the fate of the country. That fate is definitely on the line now with a nuclear Iran and a nuclear North Korea looming over our children's future.
The time is long overdue to get serious about the caliber of people to whom power and responsibility are to be entrusted. That is especially important if and when the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives after this election.
They can be vague about their agenda but they can't hide the facts about who will stand to wield power if they take over the House.
Everyone seems to be talking about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a new Speaker of the House after this year's elections. But is anyone interested in what she has actually done in the past, as a guide to what to expect from her in a powerful position that also puts her next in line to become President of the United States after the Vice President?
On immigration, Congresswoman Pelosi voted against tightening border security. Current House Speaker Dennis Hastert voted for it -- and also led the fight that stopped the Senate amnesty bill from gaining approval in the House of Representatives.
On taxes, Congresswoman Pelosi has paid no attention to their actual economic consequences and instead repeated the standard Democrat's line about "tax cuts for the wealthiest few, causing red ink as far as the eye can see."
Cuts in tax rates have been followed by increases -- repeat, increases -- in tax revenues. This has happened not only during this administration but also as far back as the Kennedy administration.
Red ink comes from runaway spending, which can always exceed any increases in revenues. When a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to cut federal spending on welfare, Pelosi voted against it.
Upper income earners -- most of whom are not rich -- have in fact paid more total taxes after the rates were cut because these cuts have spurred economic growth and higher incomes. But to admit this would be to abandon the twin pillars of liberalism, higher tax rates and class warfare rhetoric.
As regards the war on terrorism and the terrorists' war against the west, Nancy Pelosi has opposed having international phone calls to and from terrorists monitored by American intelligence agencies.
The liberal spin is that this is "domestic spying" when someone on one end of the line is within the United States. Pelosi also doesn't think we are treating terrorists nice enough at Guantanamo. She wants to give them "rights" that neither the Cons ution nor the Geneva convention gives them.
This is from someone who, as Speaker of the House, would be two heartbeats away from becoming President of the United States. We can only hope that the President and Vice President never travel in the same car or fly on the same plane.
====================
Posted without comment.
Gee when is the last time that happened? When both the President and VP have died?
The liberal spin is that this is "domestic spying" when someone on one end of the line is within the United States. Pelosi also doesn't think we are treating terrorists nice enough at Guantanamo. She wants to give them "rights" that neither the Cons ution nor the Geneva convention gives them.
This is from someone who, as Speaker of the House, would be two heartbeats away from becoming President of the United States. We can only hope that the President and Vice President never travel in the same car or fly on the same plane.
Hey ray get a warrant and the govt can listen to anyone they want.
I asked the same about George W Bush, and he was not bright, personable, articulate nor particularly young either.He is a bright, personable and articulate young man but what has he ever actually accomplished that would qualify him for the highest office in the nation and the leadership of the free world?
And Rumsfeld is currently in the line of Presidential succession. That's rich.
how many heartbeats is dummy away from the presidency? Now whatever the number is it's still a scary thought
I think if it got to the point where Henry Paulson became President, Rummy would take him out himself.
I'll tell you what Bush did compared to Obama, he was the governor of one of the most powerful/influential states in the USA.
Obama has done nothing but graduate from Harvard, Bush did that too. Obama is just a pretty boy.
Impeach Bush!
well, he did Yale undergrad and Harvard B-school for his MBA, after his stint in the National Guard. So, you're both right.
First president ever to have an MBA.
And Harvard.
The dimm-o-crap plan for the country. Now you know.
How sad.
Thomas, you can represent any piece on the chess board. What do you want to be?
"I want to be the big pawn."
That Pelosi hussy is just too uppity. She needs to stay in her house and stick to cleaning and fussing around her man.
The thought of either Rumsfeld or Pelosi as prez. makes me want to puke.
President Pelosi (how does that sound?)
No that is your lie Sowell. There is no spin. Liberals have been crystal clear all along, get a warrant and spy all you want. Checks and balances Tommy, that is what liberals care about, the freedoms this country was founded upon but you are so quick to toss away because you are trembling in fear of the next terrorist attack.
^^Nope it is the Liberal lie. It is not domestic spying or wire tapping. It is about
international calls.
You can get warrants for that too -- even after you tap the call.
But, warrants are unnecessary and a waste of time and resources for calls originating outside the United States.
If they call a number in the United States, you only need a warrant if you intend continue monitoring that domestic phone number.
Why would you require them to seek a warrant for continuing to monitor a suspected terrorist's phone overseas and why would you expect them to seek a warrant on a domestic phone if they had no intention of continuing to surveil it?
Ah yes, the "lazy" excuse. Why are Republicans so lazy? Or maybe they're just afraid of a paper trail? Or maybe they just have outright contempt at the thought of someone having oversight over their actions?But, warrants are unnecessary and a waste of time and resources for calls originating outside the United States.
All of the above.
Why are Democrats so inefficient? Seriously, why would you seek a warrant on a overseas telephone number just because it might call, or receive a call from, some unknown-to-you domestic number?
I understand seeking a warrant once you've decided to surveil the domestic number but, getting a warrant because Ahmed calls his baby sister at Yale, from Pakistan, to wish her a happy birthday seems a little excessive. You must think federal prosecutors and FISA just sit around all day.
Due process, the mere appearance of propriety and respect for the law -- you know, the little things.Why are Democrats so inefficient? Seriously, why would you seek a warrant on a overseas telephone number just because it might call, or receive a call from, some unknown-to-you domestic number?Days after the call is tapped? Lazy.I understand seeking a warrant once you've decided to surveil the domestic number but, getting a warrant because Ahmed calls his baby sister at Yale, from Pakistan, to wish her a happy birthday seems a little excessive.A FISA judge IS sitting around all day available to give the warrants days after the calls are tapped. The laziness excuse will never fly as long as the warrant process is that easy to follow.You must think federal prosecutors and FISA just sit around all day.
Since when are suspected terrorists, overseas, due any process? That's a new one.
If you're tapping an overseas number, what's the point in getting a warrant at all? You can't help if that phone is used to call a domestic number or receive a call from the U.S. -- it's just as likely to be used to call a Sudanese number or receive a call from Belgium.
I'm sure the FISA judges are pretty busy as it is. You seem to believe this administration is taking nothing to FISA.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
