Reply With Quote
i'm convinced
re-elect bush
Democrat or Republican? The question is shockingly easy!
Theo Caldwell, National Post (Canada)
Wednesday, December 26, 2007 An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the
apparent perfection of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another
makes a decision seem too easy, it is human nature to become su ious.
This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised.
American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to the
world than to select their president wisely.
While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be,
any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for
the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit,
none of the Democrats has any business being president.
This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the
Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential paucity
evinced by the Democratic field. "Not ready for prime time," goes the
vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are.
Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten essays to an
already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO sightings, dueling
celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat from America's
global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it becomes
clear that these are profoundly unserious individuals.
To be sure, there has been a fair amount of rubbish and rhubarb on the
Republican side (Ron Paul, call your office), but even a cursory review of
the legislative and professional records of the leading contenders from
each party reveals a disparity akin to adults competing with children.
For the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani served as a two-term mayor of New York
City, turning a budget deficit into a surplus and taming what was thought to
be an ungovernable metropolis. Prior to that, he held the third-highest
rank in the Reagan Justice Department, obtaining over 4,000 convictions.
Mitt Romney, before serving as governor of Massachusetts, founded a venture
capital firm that created billions of dollars in shareholder value, and he
then went on to save the Salt Lake City Olympics.
While much is made of Mike Huckabee's history as a Baptist minister, he
was also a governor for more than a decade and, while Arkansas is hardly a
"cradle of presidents," it has launched at least one previous chief
executive to national office.
John McCain's legislative and military career spans five decades, with
half that time having been spent in the Congress.
Even Fred Thompson, whose excess of nonchalance has transformed his
once-promising campaign into nothing more than a theoretical possibility,
has more experience in the U.S. Senate than any of the leading Democratic
candidates.
With just over one term as a Senator to her credit, Hillary Clinton boasts
the most extensive record of the potential Democratic nominees. In that
time, Senator Clinton cannot claim a single legislative accomplishment of
note, and she is best known lately for requesting $1-million from Congress
for a museum to commemorate Woodstock.
Barack Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in the Senate,
having previously served as an Illinois state legislator and, as Clinton has
correctly pointed out, has done nothing but run for president since he first
arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of Pakistan and
fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, Obama
has shown that he is not the fellow to whom the nation ought to hike the
nuclear football.
John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American people will
elect anyone to Congress -- once.
From his $1,200 haircuts to his personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the
porch of his 28,000-square-foot home, purchased with the proceeds of
preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant cerebral palsy, Edwards is living
proof that history can play out as tragedy and farce simultaneously.
Forget for a moment all that you believe about public policy. Discard your
notions about taxes and Iraq, free trade and crime, and consider solely the
experience of these two sets of candidates. Is there any serious issue that
you would prefer to entrust to a person with the Democrats' experience,
rather than that of any of the Republicans?
Now consider the state of debate in each party. While the Republicans
compare tax proposals and the best way to prosecute the War on Terror,
Democrats are divining the patterns and meaning of the glitter and dried
macaroni glued to the page of one of their leading candidate's kindergarten
projects.
Does this decision not become unsettlingly simple?
In regards to Hillary Clinton, her statement that she has 8 years of
experience in the White House, here is what Morris had to say about
that recently. "So does the White House Pastry Chef".
i'm convinced
re-elect bush
Nice highschool essay. B+ maybe an A-. But he makes
some sense in what he says. Neither has any qualifications
to be the Prez.
Since when is Canada divided ?
When our country has a seperatist state in the Union, I'll care what those damn socialists up north think.
Where's Canada anyway?
comparing hillary to a pastry chef made the article worth reading
the national post is the candian equivalent of the washington times or fox news
how suprising is it that they would support the republican party?
a canadian speaks the truth!!!
-Mars
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
