Eric and I had a small email exchange about Obama's qualifications yesterday. He asked me to put it on the blog because, he "really didn't see how Obama is unqualified" and that "GW was less qualified" but still got elected. I have my opinion on big O's qualifications., but I wanted to have some material from other sources to substantiate my view. What I found was rather enlightening.
Apparently, this topic has come up many times in other blogs, new articles, etc.... Some from the "right" some from the "left". As I read through the posts a theme started to emerge.
The conservative bloggers/writers listed Obama's faults; his short Federal Senate tenur, his liberal record in the Senate, his wanting to be a "citizen of the world", his socialistic agenda, etc.... Items which I will go into detail about in another post. Basically when addressed with the question "Why is Obama unqualified?" they typically listed reasons why HE is unqualified.
The liberal bloggers/writers took a different approach when addressing the question "Why is Obama Unqualified". See you would think they would counter the talking points of the conservatives. Maybe mention Obama's 8 years in the IL state Senate, or his.....well that's it I think. But they didn't They responded in the most blatantly hypocritical way imaginable...They compared Obama to Bush. These same liberals who make a living out of printing "Kill Bush" bumper stickers and blog daily about how horrible Bush was for the Country and many worse things, are the same liberals who answer the "is Obama qualified" question by saying "he's just as qualified as GW was" or "look at Bush's education and failed business endeavors and he got elected". See what's funny is that these guys (liberals) love to talk about how ignorant Texas was for electing Bush as Governor and that the American voting public was just to stupid to realize Bush was a disease. Yet they use Bush as their reasoning for why Obama is qualified?
Wait a second, you are telling me on one hand that Bush was the worse thing ever to happen to this country, yet on the other hand stating that "Obama is just as qualified as Bush was" as your defense to the qualification question. That is just crazy. If you feel that Bush was horrible as President, why would you elect another candidate that is equally as "qualified"? If you truly want a "change" from the Bush plague, then shouldn't you vote for a candidate who IS the most qualified, not one that is AS qualified as Bush?
I know this doesn't answer the specific questions with facts, I'll post that after work, but I was just thinking of this as I was reading some of the blogs
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That's not at all the rationale that's being used. The idea is that everyone continues to question Barack's qualification, but qualifications didn't seem to matter much when GW was running for office. It's hypocritical. That's the point.
All of a sudden, we need school transcripts, pedigree papers, validation of the religious practices of his primary school, and all this other crap. That's the point.
Believe me, no one, with any intelligence, is holding bush up as the litmus test. A point is being made about how hypocritical the conservative party is being, when it comes to qualified or not.
I wasn't saying that it wasn't hypocritical, what I was saying was that as I read through the articles that's the general theme from the left. Of course the republicans would down play Bush's education and qualification when he was their candidate, that's their job. But the Dems are not doing that for Obama, they are insistent on pointing back to Bush....
That's because they're saying there's a "qualification" bar. If you're insisting there's this bar to be met, before you can qualify to become president of the United States, yet you have a guy IN office, who is not representative of those qualifications, then you use that as your talking point.
There is a "qualification" bar. Republicans think Bush is qualified because of his experience as Governor and business experience. Whether you believe he was good at them is debatable. I wasn't saying I didn't think Bush was qualified, I was pointing out the way the liberals are responding to the qualification criteria.
Instead of looking at a candidate’s history or qualifications shouldn't we stop and ask ourselves what we want from our President? Without that baseline we have nothing to evaluate a candidate’s qualifications or lack of against. Initially what qualities not qualifications are we looking for in our President? Once we define the qualities then maybe we can define qualifications for the Presidency and look at the candidates in that light. It seems everyone is quick to judge candidates without ever defining what we need from our President or what qualifications we want in our President. We hear general terms like "Ready to lead on day one" but what does this actually mean? Sounds good, but define it. I feel if we start with what we want from the President and expect from the President then we can have a better process by which to evaluate candidates.
Post a Comment