5/24/09

Obama is wrong to think that empathy is a qualification to be a supreme court judge

Background: Obama said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Obama is wrong to think that empathy is a qualification to be a supreme court judge
Reasons to agree
  1. Lady justice has her eyes covered, because she limits her own view, but just holds the scale. Judges are also supposed to limit their own view. Our country has stayed for so long, without rebellions because we have the separation of powers. Legislatures make the law, and judges enforce it. We are going to have states try to leave the union, if they don't feel it still follows the intent of the constitution. Liberals think they are getting what they want, when they disregard the separation of power, but it leads to chaos.

5/17/09

Barack Obama was melodramatic about his drug use.


If you think my post come out of the middle of no where, I'm sorry. I hate the news. I hate the 24-hour news networks. I like the Sunday morning news shows better, because they put the most important things from the week, into one hour. I agree with the following statement:
"To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter."
So this is kind of out of the middle of no where, but I have been thinking about Mitt Romney and his drug policy vs. Barak Obama and his policy. That led me to the following ideas. What do you think?
  (This is a photoshop, just incase you are stupid).
Barack Obama was melodramatic about his drug use.
Reasons to agree:
  1. Obama said, "I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind." People do things for a lot of reasons. To say that he used drugs for one reason, because he was having problems with his racial identity, seems to be playing the melodramatic race card. I'm not saying that it might have been part of the reason that he used drugs, but to fully blame all his drug use with racial identity problems, like he did in his book, seems a little melodramatic.
  2. Melodrama involves an oversimplified hero. Obama seems to see himself as a hero, in a very simplistic way. He wrote two or three autobiographies about himself, before he was even un unaccomplished senator. Now that he is president, he can write a few autobiogaphies, but he has already written two or three.
  3. Obama goes on and on about how honest he was about drug use. He even went on and on about how he "wasn't the first president to use drugs, but the first one to be honest about it". However, if Obama is so honest about his short comings, why did he keep his smoking habit such a secret. And how can the press go on and on about how honest he is and they are, when they never published, and I mean not a single news outlet, published a photo of him with a smoke?
  4. When Obama said, "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though" (Dreams from My Father) 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".What do you think? 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. Boys without fathers. Obama was able to beat it… or maybe he never got in far enough.
How about this. Obama ties his drug use with his search for his identity. Bush's mother started the just say no movement. Republicans are about abstinence. Democrats don't like the goody-goody, never used drugs image. Steve Jobs said, "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?
Some of this may be old news, but I hope I am covering new territory.
Perhaps the important question is what party are we? Obviously, we are Bill Gates. We are not the party tries to glorify dropping acid. And it all goes back to these old battles from the 60s, that just won't go away. Forget Romney's Mormonism. It had nothing to do with his church… if Mitt Romney had used drugs in his youth, like Glen Beck, no one would have cared about his Mormonism. Perhaps Romney reminded people of things they don't want to admit were mistakes. Saying you don't like people like Romney is an important part of convincing yourself that people like him are narrow.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you do gain some great insight from dropping acid. Maybe Obama doesn't think he is really a cool guy because he used to use drugs. Maybe there is a logical explanation why he was "honest" about using drugs in the past, but doesn't admit his un-politically fashionable current cigarette use.
Of course the "I used to do drugs" thing glamorizes it, but the "I don't use drugs, made something out of myself, and became president" thing also de-glamorizes it. But that is not my point. I don't care about the glamorizing drugs thing. I don't even care about the hypocrisy of Obama saying how honest he was, when it serves his purposes of appealing to people who love to pat themselves on their back by saying how "nuanced" they are. What I really care about is what the whole thing says about Obama, and about the democratic and republican parties.
How many democrats are democrats, even though they want smaller government, but because they think it is cooler to be in a party that embraces nuance, or to put it another way, they are embarrassed of the goody-goody-religious right image of the republican party.
Everyone I know who grew up republican, and religious, when they started experimenting with drugs or Alcohol, they stopped calling themselves religious, and republican.
When Obama was looking for a political party, was their anyone that he could identify with?
Do we want to be the party of Youth? Do we want to be the cool party? What image do we have? I don't want the Bill Gates Microsoft image, and I don't want the Steve Jobs Apple image. What about the Mitt Romney image? I think Mitt Romney would make a hell of a president, and do the right things, and make things run more efficient, but what image would he present for our party? Is Mitt Romney cool?
Mitt Romney's dad was cool. Mitt Romney's dad was a man's man, told it like it was, was entertaining, and fun to listen to.
I think if we are going to win in 2012, we have to win the debate, and show how self serving and shallow the democrats are in their immature attempt to be cool.
That shouldn't be too hard.
1. Barack Obama was melodramatic about his drug use.


2. Barack Obama thinks its cool that he used to use drugs.

3. People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

4. We should legalize drugs.

5/3/09

Obama has not always put the safety of Americans first

Reasons to agree:

  1. Rasmussen finds 58% of Americans believe the Obama administration's release of CIA memos endangers the national security of the United States.
  2. By releasing the torture memos, Obama opened American citizens up to international tribunals. A UN lawyer said the US is obliged to prosecute lawyers who drafted the memos or else violate the Geneva Conventions.
Probable interest of those who agree:
  1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
  2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  3. Racism (5%)
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
  5. The dislike for politically correctness.
  6. The desire to call bad behavior
Probable interest of those who disagree:
  1. They disagree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
  3. Liberal guilt.
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Obama does not stand up to evil

Reasons to agree:

  1. Obama lifts travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba, showing Cuba that they can have political prisoners, forced 1 party rule, workshop of the president, and normal relations with the United States. 
  2. Obama considers dropping the embargo on Cuba, showing Cuba that they can have political prisoners, forced 1 party rule, workshop of the president, and normal relations with the United States
  3.  After warming signs from Raul Castro, Fidel Castro says Obama "misinterpreted" his brother's words, and that Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights, showing that being nice does not make other countries play nice. 
  4. Obama is considering dropping a key demand to Iran, allowing it to keep nuclear facilities open during negotiations.
  5. In a letter to Dmitri Medvedev, Obama offered to drop plans for a missile shield in Europe in exchange for Russia's help in resolving the nuclear weapons issue in Iran. Medvedev said he would not "haggle" on Iran and the missile shield, showing that being nice does not make other countries play nice. 
Reasons to disagree:
  1. Not making other countries mad does not qualify as "not standing up to evil"
Probable interest of those who agree:
  1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
  2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  3. Racism (5%)
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
  5. The dislike for politically correctness.
  6. The desire to call bad behavior
Probable interest of those who disagree:
  1. They disagree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
  3. Liberal guilt.
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Obama is not as transparent as he said he would be

Reasons to agree:
  1. "The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government." -- Defense News, 2/19
  2. "While the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008." -- Washington Post, 3/27
Probable interest of those who agree:
  1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
  2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  3. Racism (5%)
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
  5. The dislike for politically correctness.
  6. The desire to call bad behavior
Probable interest of those who disagree:
  1. They disagree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
  3. Liberal guilt.
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Obama has not been a very good diplomat

Reasons to agree:
  1. In their first meeting, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama gave him 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe.
  2. "Barack Obama has been embroiled in a cronyism row after reports that he intends to make Louis Susman, one of his biggest fundraisers, the new US ambassador in London. The selection of Mr. Susman, a lawyer and banker from the president's hometown of Chicago, rather than an experienced diplomat, raises new questions about Mr Obama's commitment to the special relationship with Britain." -- Telegraph, 2/22\
  3. Three candidates for ambassador to the Vatican -- including Caroline Kennedy -- were turned down by the Holy See because they supported abortion, according to reports.
  4. Obama bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London. "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." -- An Obama aide
  5. "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances." -- Obama, on consulting with only "living" presidents
Reasons to disagree:
  1. If you don't make any mistakes, than it means your not doing anything. If you don't say anything stupid, than it means that your not saying what is on your mind. If a president makes a goal to never say stupid things, than the solution is to have other people write all your speeches, and every time you answer a question, to sound like a tape recorder recorder rehersing the market researched policy position written by a bunch of looser beurocrats. The president should not be ridiculed, when newspapers take him out of context. You should never be able to quote less than a sentence from someone (I know I don't yet follow that rule here, but I have a full time job, a wife, and 2 kids).  Joe Biden is an idiot, but gosh-darn-it, I love the guy, and am glad that idiots like him can be in politics.
Probable interest of those who agree:
  1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
  2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  3. Racism (5%)
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
  5. The dislike for politically correctness.
  6. The desire to call bad behavior
Probable interest of those who disagree:
  1. They disagree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
  3. Liberal guilt.
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Obama has not always put the safety of Americans first

Reasons to agree:
  1. Rasmussen finds 58% of Americans believe the Obama administration's release of CIA memos endangers the national security of the United States.
  2. By releasing the torture memos, Obama opened American citizens up to international tribunals. A UN lawyer said the US is obliged to prosecute lawyers who drafted the memos or else violate the Geneva Conventions.
Probable interest of those who agree:
  1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
  2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  3. Racism (5%)
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
  5. The dislike for politically correctness.
  6. The desire to call bad behavior
Probable interest of those who disagree:
  1. They disagree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
  3. Liberal guilt.
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Obama Promotes fear to get his way

Reasons to agree:
  1. "During his historic inaugural speech, Barack Obama promised to usher in a transformational age where hope would replace fear, unity would overtake partisanship, and change would sweep aside the status quo. But early in President Obama's first 100 days it is obvious that the only thing that is changing is the Candidate of Change, himself.

"The same politician who proclaimed during his inauguration that 'on this day we have chosen hope over fear' soon warned Americans that the US economy would be forever destroyed if the stimulus bill was voted down.

"Why was it that same man who promised to put Americans' interests ahead of his own political ambitions chose instead to use the suffering of citizens to advance his agenda?

"Maybe he was following the guidance of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said, 'You never want to waste a good crisis.'

"They didn't.

"The White House's warnings were so over-the-top that Bill Clinton felt compelled to warn the new president against making such grim pronouncements. Americans would quickly warn that the White House would not channel FDR's eternal optimism but rather embrace the gloomy worldview of Edgar Allen Poe.

"The Candidate of Hope also quickly adopted the Nixonian worldview that Americans voted their fears rather than their hopes. Over Mr. Obama's first 100 days, that cynical calculation paid off politically for a White House that seemed most interested in appeasing the most liberal members of his Democratic Party.

"I expected more from Barack Obama. For the sake of my country, I hope I get it from the new president over the next 100 days."

-- Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and author of "The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise" (Crown Forum), due out June 9.

Probable interest of those who agree:
  1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
  2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  3. Racism (5%)
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
  5. The dislike for politically correctness.
  6. The desire to call bad behavior
Probable interest of those who disagree:
  1. They disagree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
  3. Liberal guilt.
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Obama has not done very well putting people into power

Reasons to agree:
  1. "Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on. Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there." -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The 9/11 hijackers did not come across the Canada border
  2. "The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." -- Department of Homeland Security intelligence report
  3. Timothy Geithner nomination as Secretary of Treasury was almost torpedoed when it was discovered he had failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes. He also employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper. He was confirmed anyway.
  4.  . . or Caroline Atkinson, who withdrew as nominee for Undersecretary of International Affairs in Treasury Department, with a source blaming the long vetting process. Geithner still has a skeleton crew at Treasury, with no one qualified -- or willing -- to take jobs there.
  5. "Richardson's value in Obama's Cabinet had everything to do with appearances. First, he was the Hispanic pick. Second, because Richardson had run against Obama for President, tapping him for the Cabinet helped the media write the Obama-Lincoln comparisons by burnishing the 'Team of Rivals' image.

    "But Richardson withdrew before Obama was even inaugurated when news came out about a criminal investigation involving David Rubin, president of a firm named Chambers, Dunhill, Rubin & Co. (although there was no Chambers or Dunhill), who had donated at least $110,000 to Richardson's campaign committees and had also profited from $1.5 million in contracts from the state government.

    "This was an early warning sign about Obama's vetting process (various tax problems and the Daschle problem would reveal this as a theme), but picking Richardson to run Commerce also highlighted that Obama and Richardson's promise of 'public-private partnerships' -- such as Detroit bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, and green energy--was an open door for corruption and was at odds with Obama's promise to diminish the influence of lobbyists.

    "The Richardson mistake was one of Obama's first, and it was emblematic. Richardson embodied Obama's attention to self-image and the problems inherent in his vision of an intimate business-government connection."

    -- Tim Carney is a Washington Examiner columnist

Reasons to disagree:
  1. You shouldn't judge a president by the mistaked the people they oppoint make. You hope that he brings people into power that are the most qualified, and are not too political, but doing a tit-for-tat list of Obama appointy mistakes is missing the big picture, when he brings thousands of people into power. Janett Reno burnt innocent wemon and children at Waco. None of Obama's people have done anything like that.
Probable interest of those who agree:
  1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
  2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  3. Racism (5%)
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.
  5. The dislike for politically correctness.
  6. The desire to call bad behavior
Probable interest of those who disagree:
  1. They disagree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
  2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
  3. Liberal guilt.
  4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Obama is not "bipartisan"

Reasons to agree:
  1. No political party platform is right all the time. For Obama to be called "bipartisan" he should have to disagree with his party more than other politicians. By this standard, Obama was the least democratic candidate running for president in 2008. His political record was even more liberal than Dennis Kucinich
  2. "Obama soared to victory on the hopeful promise of a new era of bipartisanship. During his inaugural address he even promised an 'end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.'

"Too bad it took all of three days for the promise to ring hollow.

"Start with Obama's big meeting with top congressional leaders on his signature legislation -- the stimulus -- on the Friday after his inauguration. Listening to Republican concerns about overspending was a nice gesture -- until he shut down any hopes of real dialogue by crassly telling Republican leaders: 'I won.' Even the White House's leaking of the comment was a slap at the Republican leadership, who'd expected Obama to adhere to the custom of keeping private meetings with congressional leadership, well, private.

"It's only gone downhill from there. The stimulus included zero Republican recommendations, and failed to get a single House Republican vote.

"It's not just the tactic of using Republicans for bipartisan photo-ops, and then cutting them loose before partisan decisions, that irks Obama's opponents. The new president wasted no time rushing forward with policies and legislation guaranteed to drive Republicans nuts. The first bill he signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- a partisan hot-button that drew all of eight Republican supporters in the entire Congress. Then there was the swift reversal of Bush policies on abortion and embryonic-stem-cell research -- issues dear to the Republican base.

"And when Obama and the Democrats in Congress took up SCHIP -- the children's health-insurance bill that Republicans say vastly expands government's role in health care -- they had an easy chance for real bipartisanship. After all, the bill had been hashed out in the previous Congress, and a bipartisan accord was reached before President Bush responded with a veto. Did the Obama team push for the compromise version in the 111th Congress? Nope. They went back to the drawing board, ramming through the Democrats' dream version.

"Of course, the lack of bipartisanship isn't limited to Capitol Hill. Obama has taken gratuitous swipes at the Republicans who recently decamped Washington, blaming President Bush for everything from the economy and the war to the lack of sufficient puppies and rainbows. And who could forget the Rush Limbaugh flap -- in which Obama's top advisers, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, orchestrated a public relations campaign meant to undermine the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, by framing talk-radio personality Limbaugh as the real head of the Republican Party.

"For now, Obama's back-pedal on the bipartisanship promise just makes him look insincere. But the real consequences of the mistake will be felt soon enough. As Presidents Bush and Clinton could tell him, congressional majorities do change -- and at some point, Obama will need Republicans on his side. He'd be smart to spend his second 100 days making up for the serious snubs of his first."

-- Meghan Clyne is a DC-based writer.