Eddie Gaedel (3' 7" tall) batting for the St Louis Browns in 1951. (It was a publicity stunt by Bill Veeck.) Gaedel's accomplishment? He walked, thus had a 1000% career on-base percentage. BUT HE NEVER BECAME PRESIDENT.
Since the admirers of Barack Obama are generally guided by feelings and emotion as opposed to reason, it might be a good idea to keep a few "talking points" in mind when engaged with these folks. Fox News host Sean Hannity has hit the nail on the head with his debating points on this issue, which boils down to one central question:
Name one accomplishment that Barack Obama has that qualifies him to be president.
This tactic has been used quite effectively on the Hannity and Colmes Show when Sean has posed the question to Obama supporters on the air. They are stumped.
So if you find yourselves in such a debate, you will be hit with certain responses such as;
"Obama is a great and inspirational speaker."
Yes, he is, although he had a verbal collapse the other day when his teleprompter went off and he was left speechless. He has also performed poorly when hit with hard questions on his questionable associations. Yet, it comes down to this: Show me a great speaker, and I will show you-a great speaker-nothing more and nothing less. Oratorical skill does not translate into having the right ideas. History is replete with great speakers who were horrific leaders and/or demagogues. (Do I really have to name examples?)
"Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law School Review."
Fine, but one's accomplishments in college mean nothing as to his/her qualifications to be president. That argument should be summarily dismissed.
"He has been a (Illinois) state senator and US Senator."
And what did he do in those positions? More specifically and to the point, what has Obama done in the US Senate since he was elected besides run for president since arriving in Washington?
"Well, he voted for this and that..."
So what? What legislation has he pushed through? What are his legislative accomplishments?
If your interlocutor is really desperate, he/she might quote Michelle Obama in describing Barack's "unique" experience as a "community organizer" in Chicago. If you really want to dignify that, you could respond, "Doing what?"
Of course, you will be hit with the "change" mantra.
Change what? When Obama gives his stump speech talking about change and hope, what specifically would he do?
Then, after parrying all these arguments, you might bring up the subject of judgement. What kind of judgement does Obama have when it comes to his associations over the years?
Jeremiah Wright
Michael Pfleger
Bill Ayers
Bernadine Dohrn
Tony Rezko
Obama himself would claim that he should not be held responsible for the actions and words of the above individuals (Guilt by association). But has not Obama on at least one occasion (Rezko) admitted to a lapse of judgement in being associated with the above?
All this leaves aside the question of Obama's left-wing beliefs. If his supporters advocate a left-wing agenda for this country, then there is not a lot to argue about. However, if these folks want to engage in a debate that Barack Obama is qualified to be president, that is an argument they cannot win.
Unless you think Eddie Gaedel should be in the Hall of Fame.
14 comments:
haha gary you make your point but not all obama supporters are blinded by emotion.
There are quite a few rational intellectuals that distinguish him as a potential great leader. Here are those points.
1.) his record as a state senator is pretty astounding in terms of how he accomplished getting various laws passed. Check out his state senate record. He clearly is a born 'leader' and communicator with a record to prove it.
2.) he ran a brilliant campaign and defeated on of the shrewdest and most powerful political families of the late 20th century. That alone says plenty about his skills as an executive manager.
3.)His message is a rational one, he delivers on that message and has throughout his political career.
4.)lol - NAME ONE THING THAT GEORGE BUSH DID TO QUALIFY HIM AS A PRES. bet you voted for him, didn't cha?
My poor dear anonymous,
How come we don't know anything about Obama's State Senate record? If it was so great, wouldn't he and his campaign be touting it?
Keep in mind that a state senator-and a US senator don't manage anything. (That is why many give more weight to former governors than senators.) Born leader? Leader of what? What has he led? What has he managed? What profound ideas does he have-beyond Change and Hope?
Yes, Obama and his staff ran a great campaign in taking the nomination away from Clinton. I actually voted for him in the Calif primary because as an independent, I couldn't vote for a Rep, but I could vote for a Dem. So I cast my vote against Clinton.
And sorry, winning the nomination over Clinton does not mean anyone has skills as an executive manager. They are different skills.
"His message is a rational one, and he delivers on that message."
How does he deliver? That's pretty vague. His message is basically "change" and "hope". Period. Beyond the words, there isn't much there.
As for GW, I voted for McCain in the 1992 primary in California. I wasn't convinced that Bush was the best qualified Republican either. Yes, I voted for him over Al Gore and John Kerry-and would today.
I guess it comes down to this; If you consider yourself liberal-Obama's your guy. I'm conservative, so I will vote McCain-even though I have some problems with him.
And if you are so taken with Obama's speaking skills, you might want to check out the youtube video of him a few days ago when his teleprompter shut down.
Now that was a real ha ha!
PS to Anonymous,
I didn't completely answer your
4th point about GW's accomplishments:
Consider these:
The Taliban no longer runs Afghanistan-thus, they no longer execute women in soccer stadiums.
Saddam Hussein and his sons are dead. Rape rooms, torture chambers, mass graves are no more.
The above two countries at least have a chance to establish a decent govt.
There have been no further attacks since 9-11. Why? Things like Gitmo, rendition, killing terrorists and Jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq, NSA surveillance, etc. I know you liberals think that's all bad, but not me.
Two good Supreme Court judges.
Tax cuts.
That's not a bad resume. There are negatives to be sure, but doing away with the Taliban and Saddam are plusses.
Gary, everything you just listed was accomplished by Bush AFTER he became President. The question was what accomplishment(s) did he have in 2000 that earned him your vote?
Oh and just so there is no confusion, I am a different poster from the anonymous person above.
They did away with the Taliban? Huh? Sure, they're not in control anymore, but it's not like they're totally gone - or am I missing something? Who the hell is killing our troops over there then?
Also, the thing about there not being any attacks since 9/11 is pretty specious reasoning. I'm not saying that what we're doing has NOTHING to do with it (well, what we're doing in Iraq has nothing to do with it - I will say that), but you're ignoring the fact that there have been terrorist attacks on our allies. More importantly, it's a fallacy to automatically state that just because two things happen at the same time that one is the cause of the other.
But I gotta say...are you really pulling out that old "rape room" meme regarding Hussein? I mean, is he the only dictator who does stuff like that? Shall we go after all of them? Don't get me wrong, I'd back a truck over the guy myself, but it's pure propaganda to get your panties all up in a bunch about him and not all the other awful dictators out there. Especially considering that we had no problem with him back when he was doing some of his most truly evil stuff. (Ever see the photo of Rummy shaking his hand?) Those pundits, man...they're rotting your brain, I tells ya!
And here's a reason why Bush REALLY sucks - we haven't caught Osama bin Laden, and it doesn't seem as though our leadership even cares!!! I'm totally outraged whenever I even think of that. We oughtta catch that guy, make him wear women's underwear, march him down Times Square while people throw rotten vegetables at him, and do him ala Caesar to Vercingetorix. (I'm using hyperbole - but just a bit.)
Oh, and I'm not an Obama supporter. I haven't decided for certain that I'm not going to vote for him though (unlike McCain and Clinton - although that's a moot point...or is it?)
What I do like about him though is that he was one of the only major candidates who was actually making sense when talking about the war. (Kucinich and Paul were the other ones.) Too much doublethink with Clinton and McCain. Still, it's probably not wise to vote for a guy just because of his stance on one issue.
Bryan,
That's an easy one. He wasn't Al Gore.
Lance,
If we marched OBL down the street wearing women's panties, all the libs would go crazy saying it's another Abu Ghraib.
As for my responses to Mr Anonymous (who considers himself a "rational intellectual"), I was just answering his questions. He wanted to know Bushs' accomplishments-I gave him a few.
Bryan claims that the question was what accomplishments Bush had before being president. He wasn't Al Gore-that was enough for me.
So what's everybody gettin' their panties up about?
Since I have you on the line, I'm taking a break from all this mental sparring. Saturday, it's off to Erlangen (that's Germany for you "rational intellectuals" out there) and I'm going to drink beer for 10 days. Whadda'ya think about that?
I'll have plenty of homebrew here, but since I can get that all the time, I'm definitely jealous.
And don't be too certain how "liberals" (not sure if I am one or not) feel about what we should do with Bin Laden. While there might be a few wackjobs out there who would protest, I think a lot would be on board with humiliating him. The criticism that they give has more to do with the treatment of the random soldier who was pressed into service. The mastermind though? He's fair game.
It's like when Jon Stewart was talking about one of Bin Laden's tapes a few years ago. Bin Laden was capitalizing on the fact that most Americans were now against the war. Stewart addressed him and clarified that we were against the war in Iraq - we were still for bringing him in. (He did it in a funny way though.)
Oh, and Gary...your "he's not Al Gore" response to Bryan is a pretty blatant question dodge. The point is, you could make the same lack-of-accomplishments argument about Bush that you do about Obama. (I once heard somebody say the same thing about Lincoln - don't know enough about the Great Emancipator to know if that's true though.)
Lance,
Seriously, GW's one big accomplishment PRIOR to becoming president was being Gov of Texas. As I stated, I did not consider him the best qualified Rep candidate at the time. I voted for McCain in the Calif primary.
I voted for GW against Gore because I couldn't stand that phony, windbag buffoon. (Still can't). So saying I voted for Bush because he wasn't Al Gore was not exactly a dodge. It was (to quote Anonymous) a perfectly rational, intellectual thing to do. Same for Bush-Kerry.
So there! Can I have my Kitzmann now?
(For all you rational intellectuals out there, that's the local brew in Erlangen- Germany for all you RIs).
The way you use the word "intellectual", you'd think that there was something wrong with being one.
Honestly, I'm not sure if I voted for Gore - I know that I didn't vote for Kerry. But if I did vote for Gore, I voted for him for the same reason you voted for Bush, only the opposite.
But yeah, you can have your Kitzmann. I'm stuck here, drinking my homemade Dunkelweizen from my Kitzmann mug. (Which isn't such a bad thing.)
Well, I was only quoting the post from Anonymous who referred to "rational intellectuals" who support Obama. "Intellectual" is a word that can be used derisively, which I often do, but even worse is when it is used in all seriousness to describe those who are "smarter" than the rest of us bears. (Like Anonymous did.)
Gary, I don't see how you can criticize the arguments that Obama supporters (which I am not, for the record) make for him, when your argument for voting for Bush in 2000 was just as weak, if not weaker. So would you leave Obama supporters alone if they told you their reasoning was just, "He's not McCain?"
Bryan,
All kidding aside, it's this way. I voted for GW because I am conservative (though not Republican). Al Gore and John Kerry are liberal Democrats, whom I could never vote for. I won't go into all the negatives that I saw in Gore.
Those who vote for Obama will probably do so because they are liberal/Democrats. I can't criticize anyone for doing that if they are liberal. I just can't see why so many people can't get past Obama's image and oratorical skills and see that he doesn't have the qualifications for being president. Do they really think that anyone from that Church in Chicago is going to brings us all together?
At any rate, if we break it down to conservative vs liberal, then each voter's choice is pretty clear.
Post a Comment