Obama vs Romney in 2012

I saw this image, where a soccer mom asks Obama, "I thought you were getting a Hybrid?" Obama is driving a giant SUV that says "Big Gov". I compare what Obama is doing with the government, to what Romney would have done.

Here is a quote:


Romney took more than skills and knowledge away from Bain; he also acquired a way of thinking, a Weltanschauung—call it the Bain world view. He sees waste and inefficiency in almost moral terms; in fact, his crusade against inefficiency is practically a governing philosophy. "Government inefficiency wastes resources and places a burden on citizens and employers that's harmful to our future," he told me. "And anytime I see waste, or patronage, it bothers me." 

Now compare that to Obama.


[Obama-inefficiency.gif]


Romney is the best candidate to handle our massive problems.

Reasons to agree

  1. Romney ran businesses (Bain Capital and Bain Consulting) that purchased poorly ran companies and turned them around.
  2. Barack Obama is running the country poorly.
  3. The country will need a massive turnaround in 2012.
The inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine are nothing compared to the waste of energy that big bureaucracies produce. 

Barack Obama thinks its cool that he used to use drugs

 (The Obama photo is a photoshop, just in case you are stupid).

Reasons to agree:

  1. Obama said, “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though” (Dreams from My Father). People who use street names for drugs, are trying to sound cool.
  2. Perhaps he thought he would reach those who had used drugs and convence them to go straight. However he will have reached more straight kids and convinced them to use drugs, by making it sound cool, showing that he was able to beat it, and using their street names, as though he is still trying to have “street cred”.
  3. Democrats don’t like the goody-goody, never used drugs image. Steve Jobs said about Bill Gates, “I wish him the best, I really do. I just think he and Microsoft are a bit narrow. He’d be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger.” So according to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates wouldn’t be so “narrow” if he had “dropped acid”. Was Barack Obama trying to tell people he wasn’t “narrow” when he told the world all about his drug use, but he hides, and the media helps him hide his continued cigarette addiction? Did Obama think it was sexy of him to have used drugs in the past, but he is embarrassed of his continued cigarette addiction? If not, why did he tell the world about the former, and no one knows about the latter?

 Reasons to disagree:

  1. Obama was trying to reach people by using the street name. He wasn't trying to sound cool. You are reading way too much into this, and wouldn't want people over analyzing everything you say. 
Was Obama too self centered with his drug use story? Will heavy drug use go up? Perhaps it will go down. Obama can be a good or bad role model to people in a powerful way. What do you think?

Obama passed on stupid urban legends that exaggerated racial problems.


Obama is Wrong:

Reasons to agree:
  1. “I don’t want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college.” ~ Barack Obama, fund-raiser in Harlem, NY, Nov. 29, 2007.

    “Simply untrue, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There may be a case for arguing, as some Obama supporters have done, that the total number of black prisoners is slightly higher than the total number of black students. But I can only fact check the comparison the candidate actually made, which was between young black men in prison and in college. Rather than acknowledge the error, the Obama campaign declined to provide statistical support.” Source: GovWatch on 2008 Pinocchio Awards for Biggest Fib of 2007 Jan 1, 2008. As GovWatch points out, there are more black men in prison (age 18 to 100 years old) than there are “young  black men” in college. However Obama said there were more young black men in prison than in college, which is far from true.

Obama is right on Merit Pay

Reasons to agree:

  1. We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior
  2. ” Teachers are extraordinarily frustrated about how their performance is assessed. And not just their own performance, but the school’s performance generally. So they’re teaching to the tests all the time. What I have said is that we should be able to get buy-in from teachers in terms of how to measure progress. Every teacher I think wants to succeed. And if we give them a pathway to professional development, where we’re creating master teachers, they are helping with apprenticeships for young new teachers, they are involved in a variety of other activities, that are really adding value to the schools, then we should be able to give them more money for it. But we should only do it if the teachers themselves have some buy-in in terms of how they’re measured. They can’t be judged simply on standardized tests that don’t take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not.” ~ Barack Obama, 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week” Aug 19, 2007

Background

Q: As president, can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line & say, “You know what? Republicans have a better idea here?”

A: I think that on issues of education, I’ve been very clear about the fact–and sometimes I’ve gotten in trouble with the teachers’ union on this–that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers.

Q: You mean merit pay?

A: Well, merit pay, the way it’s been designed, I think, is based on just a single standardized test–I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming into school already 3 years or 4 years behind. But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, “You know what? Teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally–that we should pay excellence more.” I think that’s a good idea.

Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008

Steve Harris (VP Global Communications at GM) vs. Romney

Former Governor Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in the New York times on November 21st (click here).

Romney begins the op-ed with this:

IF General MotorsFord and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers (read more).

Steve Harris (a VP of Global Communications at GM) responded to Mitt Romney. He said:

I noticed the Boston dateline on Mitt Romney’s article advocating bankruptcy for Detroit’s auto industry (this is a vast oversimplification). From his New England home (and I thought anti-new England xenophobia was only alive and well in the republican primaries), Mr. Romney may not realize how much the industry has changed since 1969, when his father, George W. Romney, left Michigan (how dare he!) to become housing and urban development secretary.

Translation: Only people who decide to live in Michigan until they die can have an opinion about what the United States FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does with tax payers money, when it comes to giving our money to Ford, or GM. Mr. Harris said “I noticed the Boston dateline on Mitt Romney’s article…”, and he complained how “George W. Romney, left Michigan to become housing and urban development secretary”. I guess George Romney shouldn’t have “left Michigan” to become housing and urban development secretary… Perhpas George Romney should have moved Washington DC to Michigan? Mr. Harris in unable to admit that George Romney helped turn around things while he was at AMC… he just spat at him for leaving Detroit.

Besides, the argument is stupid. Mr. Harris said;

Mr. Romney may not realize how much the industry has changed since 1969 (yes, you guys have done a great job since 1969). Nearly every recommendation Mitt Romney makes for United States automakers has already been undertaken by current management in Detroit (and they have done a great job! Just look at their stock! So when Mr. Harris says that “nearly” every recommendation Romney makes… has been taken… this is political speach, that makes an emotional, not a logical argument. Mr. Harris says that they are already “nearly” doing what Romney tells them to. And so in order to argue with him, you have to get into specifics. Most of us are too lazy for specifics, and so we just trust him.) Automakers have been investing in the future on the order of $12 billion a year in research and development — second only to the semiconductor industry.

Mitt Romney did not say, “All you have to do is invest more in R&D”. Mr. Harris did not even read Mitt’s Op-ed. Does Mr. Harris judge progress by how much money is spent? We are doing a great job… look at all this money we are spending! Mr. Harris would do well in government… don’t look at our results, look at how much money we are spending! Besides why not compair how much GM spends on R&D to Toyota?

Then he says:

In addition, General Motors has cut $9 billion in structural costs since 2005 and last year reached a landmark agreement to transfer the delivery of health care to the United Auto Workers union.

Once again, you just have to ask idiots like this: “so, do you think you have followed Mitt Romney’s advice and cut enough money?” Lets do some math. They have cut “$9 billion in structural cost since 2005″. That is 3 billion a year (I hope that is GM and not all 3). Maybe it takes someone who got more than just a degree in communication, like Mr. Harris, to realize that that is not enough money when Ford lost 12.7 billion in 2006

It may seem like I am jumping around here, but I am reprinting Steve Harris’ op-ed verbatim, and he jumps around making no coherent argument. Mr. Harris goes from saying what a great job they are doing at cutting cost at GM, to making this strange argument:

Finally, it is inappropriate of Mr. Romney to invoke Walter Reuther‘s name while advocating using bankruptcy to break union contracts. That reference may be overlooked in Boston but surely not in Detroit.

If you don’t know what Mr. Harris is talking about, this is what Romney wrote:

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

Mr. Harris did not respond to what Reuther said; that ”getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.” Mr. Harris did not respond to any of Romney’s arguments. Mr. Harris just said that it was wrong for someone who lived in Boston to have an opinion what the Federal Government did with the tax payer’s money, and that it was somehow wrong for Romney to quote something that someone told his dad. Mr. Harris failed to explain WHY it was wrong for Romney to quote something that someone told his dad, and I can’t figure it out. I read his wikipedia article, and it doesn’t seem like he is someone that is so evil, that we must assume every sentence he ever spoke was inherently wrong, and offensive to the tender sensibilities of people like Mr. Harris.

I did not cut, or leave out any of Mr. Harris’s so called response to Romney. I’m not trying to make him look stupid by leaving out some of his arguments. But it is not just his stupidity that makes me mad. Mitt Romney did not take a salary as the CEO of the 2002 winter Olympics. Mitt Romney did not take a salary as Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney gave millions to the 2002 winter Olympics. Mr. Harris acts like he is angry at former Governor Mitt Romney said about GM. I don’t know how much Mr. Harris makes, but he will make more money if GM gets money from the federal government. Here is an idiot, and an ass, who has a conflict of interest, makes a xenophobic inc
oherent argument against anyone who doesn’t live in Michigan, and who dares have an opinion about not sending the current luxury private plane-flying executives (like him) federal money.

Mitt Romney didn’t base his insight just on the fact that his dad was a former automobile executive.

Mitt Romney was a business consultant that got paid to tell failing companies what to do, when they were in trouble. Mitt Romney used to get paid to give advice like the advice that he gave our country. Mitt Romney gave us insight for free, that he used to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for. 

Here is the rest of Romney’s article:

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMWHonda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Op-Ed By Mitt Romney

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

Obama is wrong to say that we should “slow development of Future Combat Systems.”

Reasons to agree

  1. We live in a world were millions of middle-age minded people would like to destroy America. We could throw away all our weapons, and fight them with bronze spears. However diverse modern populations, with equal rights for minorities, that promote civil rights, a free press, the rule of law, and invests in education, health-care, etcetera… these societies are going to have a technological advantage. Those societies that work hard, educate their public, that work efficiently, and allow their women to be productive members of society… those societies that embrace science, reason, law, and education… these societies are the best care-takers of the future. Human histories are full of war. We live in a time when dictators still build statues to themselves, and enslave their populations. Therefore it is important that modern societies have modern weapons. 
  2. Societies that use irrational extremism to motivate their geneses to build weapons for them will never be as stable as multi-party democracies, with the rule of law. Hitler forced a lot of scientist to work for him, and they built some very cutting edge plains. They almost beat the free world to building the nuclear bomb. If they had succeeded, we would all have been speaking German. But in the long run, many of these scientist wore forced to work for Germany. Those that could escape to the west (like Einstein who fled Europe when he saw the Nazis come to power) fled to the free world. In the long run, good modern societies, are going to have smart people want to be a part of them. This is part of why our immigration policy should be used to recruit the brightest people from all over the planet, and try to get them to stay here in America. 
  3. Patriotism, love of democracy, and the desire for peace are not the only things that would inspire smart people to build great weapons. Religious fanatism can also motivate smart people to build new weapons. Perceived injustices, nationalism, money, and misinformation perpetuated by a state-ran media, can all be used by power hungry governments to motivate their scientist. But scientist who are stupid enough to be manipulated will never build weapons that are as good as the scientist who are willing to work for the causes of freedom, democracy, equality, and a pursuit of rational justice. 
  4. Evil people are going to develop future combat systems. If we enjoy life, and want our children to be free, we have to build better weapons. 
  5. Evil people don't build weapons because good people do. But good people have to build weapons because evil people do.
Movies that disagree
  1. Iron Man's main character, Tony Stark, closes his weapons business before he found out how evil that one guy was. 
  2. Almost every movie today disagrees. The 2nd Batmat had an evil weapons dealer. Their was that movie "Lord of War", with a guy just like Tony Stark who was a weapons dealer. 

When A Soldier Comes Home


WHEN A SOLDIER COMES HOME … 
This email is being circulated around-the-world – please keep it going 

(Please pass this one along, it's worth your time.

When a soldier comes home, he finds it hard….


…to listen to his son whine about being bored.  

….to keep a straight face when people complain about potholes.


to be tolerant of people who complain about the hassle of getting ready for work.


…to be understanding when a co-worker complains about a bad night's sleep.


..to be silent when people pray to God for a new car.


…to control his panic when his wife tells him he needs to drive slower.  

..to be compassionate when a businessman expresses a fear of flying. 

…to keep from laughing when anxious parents say they're afraid to send their kids off to summer camp.  

…to keep from ridiculing someone who complains about hot weather.  

…to control his frustration when a colleague gripes about his coffee being cold.  

…to remain calm when his daughter complains about having to walk the dog. 



…to be civil to people who complain about their jobs.  

…to just walk away when someone says they only get two weeks of vacation a year.  

…to be forgiving when someone says how hard it is to have a new baby in the house.  



The only thing harder than being a Soldier.  


Is loving one.  


 

McCain for President

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008; A19

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association — with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Sarah Palin is wrong to pit one part of the country against the other.



Reasons to agree

  1. We don't choose where we are born, so it is kind of silly to be proud of it.
  2. People aren't all that different, in different states. 
  3. Their are liberals in Alaska, and conservatives in New York.
  4. Sarah Palin accuses those who live in New York of being "elite", and then when asked what she means by "elite" she says people who think they are better than others. Sarah Palin seems to think she is better than New Yorkers because she is from Alaska.

Page 1 of 10123456Last »