Re: Is Anyone In This Group Enthusiastic About Any Candidate?


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:91oco3pfln90inuo6hknbo14lg222u0ed0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:45:29 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mgfco35ta4kshetuojbe3opii7q0a8qa27@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:54:37 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rita" <Rita@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6t8co3dg343luigbjuiul8314h0inb67vn@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:02:35 -0500, Oldie69@xxxxxxxxx (Olly Mensch)
wrote:

When you are aspiring to be the President of the U.S., you do not find
yourself in a position where you have to "hire" experience, and rely
on
the views of others. A President will always have available to him the
views of the membes of his cabinet; but that should not exclude his
own
That is not the quality we want in a candidate. For the highest
office of the country, we want someone who DOES have experience
himself/herself, and Obama has none, though he does have intelligence
and charm - but no experience - and that is dangerous and foolish for
the public to elect him. Anything at all could be "hired' - it
represents second-class performance, relying on the judgment of
others.
We elect a President in order to be able to rely on his judgment,
based
on his own experience, on top of the advice he receives from his
Cabinet.= = Olly

So, who in your view has this vast experience running the federal
government? Romney, McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama,
Edwards. Those who have been Senators -- McCain, Clinton, Obama,
Edwards have participated in foreign policy agendas and votes.
Romney has no federal experience nor does Guiliani or Huckabee.

So run them down, Olly, and tell me which is superior in this task
based on actual experience in Washington? That seems to be the
critereum you are advocating?

Experience in Washington, or experience running a government? The lists
are
different.

Experience in Washington, from most to least:

McCain
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Guliani
Romney
Huckabee

(the order of the last three determined by how much meaningful
interaction
each would likely have had with Washinton in their former positions.)

Experience to be President, most to least:

Romney (governor, Mass. being larger than NYC)
Guiliani (NYC being larger than Arkansas)
Huckabee
McCain (longest Wash tenure)
Clinton
Edwards
Obama


Which of the candidates judged correctly on the issue of invading
Iraq? Was not that the most momentous decision of the last 8
years?

Only Obama, but I don't like to make this a one-horse pony sort of
process.
No matter how huge Iraq seems, it's still just part of a very large
picture
called "The Effective Governance of the USA". (IOW, being right on Iraq
does
not mean that Obama won't screw up the economy.)



Haven't you noticed? The economy is already FUBAB,
thanks to the borrow-and-spend "economic philosophy".

I've noticed. Things can always get worse, and quite easily, for example
by
ignoring Medicare funding for a couple more terms.



Yep, things can get worse, especially if we continue to
elect the party that not merely allowed things to get this.
bad, but actively worked to get them this bad.

This is simply the idiocy of partisanship. **At this moment in time**, the
GOP are the the big spenders and the ones who are most accountable for the
economic difficulties we are facing. Granted. Fast forward a decade and a
half. If nothing is done about Medicare by then, the imbalance of Medicare
will swamp the paltry 10T that the two parties (not all of that is GOP -- a
majority, but not all) have given us.

I'll leave it to you to figure out which party gave us Medicare. Suffice to
say that the argument reverses. It's already in the cards, we're just
waiting for the next hand to be dealt.

The obivous conclusion is that economic screwup is a bipartisan effort.

There ain't no free lunch. You can't cut taxes and also
continue not merely to spend, but spend harder and harder.
If you do that, what happens? What happens is what we
have now. I never heard of Friedman saying how utterly
stupid this policy was, but I don't know, maybe he did.
Did he? If he didn't, then you already know what I think
of his Nobel prize.

He wasn't much impressed by you, either.

JG



It seems that even a chipmunk should
have known perfectly well all along that this was an utterly
stupid way to run one's finances, even an ordinary
chipmunk that never won a Nobel prize.









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: They say Obama is starting to stumble. The hell he is."/New Republic magazine
    ... the president is taking flak. ... So it was an ominous sign for Barack Obama last week when he appeared ... The first is the economy. ... Although many Democrats ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • MAIN STREAM MALFEASANCE
    ... 'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short ... If it moves, tax it. ... President Obama is still struggling to get his legs and many who had ... President intends to ask for new funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: World President in Trouble?
    ... Barack Obama was heralded as "president of the world." ... "Europe is increasingly turning against his massive spending plans, ... for the global economy and will only add to a massive American debt ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • World President in Trouble?
    ... Barack Obama was heralded as "president of the world." ... "Europe is increasingly turning against his massive spending plans, ... for the global economy and will only add to a massive American debt ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • ,Analysis: Obama plans eclipsing New Deal spending
    ... Vice President Joe Biden looks on as President Barack Obama speaks to mayors... ... In all, the plans would raise the federal portion of the U.S. economy to some 31 percent, more than twice the level after eight years of FDR's historic New Deal spending. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Quantcast