Tuesday, September 09, 2008

The Best I Could Hope For

Why would a Republican care if a Democrat is experienced, prepared, or competent, and why would a Democrat care if a Republican is experienced, prepared, or competent? Is someone who is accomplished in the functions of government we oppose better or worse for the country than someone unaccomplished in the functions of government we oppose? I think I would prefer an incompetent leader to a competent leader running government if government is trying to enforce laws I disagree with.

Like most beliefs being promoted by the Democratic Party, I don’t understand the attacks coming from Democrats against the experience and competence of Sarah Palin. However, as an opponent of the beliefs of the Democratic Party, if America is going to have a President from the Democratic Party, Barrack Obama is about the best I could hope for.


The Count said...

Better than Lieberman? Really?

David M. Smith said...

Hi Count,

Good question. There is no doubt in my mind Senator Lieberman would make a very good President if he were judged solely by his National security and war on terror positions. Which I think you and I would both agree is the most important issue of our time.

However, the chance that Senator Lieberman could be the Democratic Party nominee for President is almost zero because of his National security and war on terror positions.

If Senator Lieberman were to be nominated, I wouldn’t be quite as opposed to the Democratic Party as I am now, and if he were to be elected, I’m almost certain he would be in a position to influence and enact many public policies I disagree with.

I don’t think Senator Obama will be elected President, but if he were to be elected, I don’t think he will have much influence and ability to enact his policies because he doesn’t have the ability to work with the opposition at all.

What do you think? Are you willing to put all other positions at risk to continue in the right direction on National security?

Kevin said...

Plus, Lieberman isn't technically a Democrat anymore, is he?

I don't think incompetence implies impotence, particularly since the President's judgements are informed and enacted by others. Obama would have Executive authority, including the appointment of judges, and with a Democratic Congress, he might not have to work with the opposition quite as much.

But I think that Obama can be convincing and his momentum and mythos could carry him for quite a while if he were elected.


David M. Smith said...

Hi Kevin,

Senator Lieberman calls himself an Independent Democrat and I understand he no longer caucuses with the Democrats.

I will allow for the possibility Senator Obama could get elected President, but I highly doubt he will be elected by more than a very, very, slim majority. Hence, not much of a mandate for his kind of change.

Competence in the Presidency is the ability to reach without overreaching. Sure, a lot can be done by executive order, but nothing big can get done without 60 Senators, including the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

I don’t think a President Obama will be subtle or be content with marginal accomplishments, so I do think he will end up being as (in)effective as Jimmy Carter.

I didn’t say I wanted a President Obama, but I did say if I have to have a President from the Democratic Party, I want one who is not very competent.

Kevin said...

Hi David,

I see, so you're saying that Obama's incompetence is that he will be so extreme and uncompromising in his goals that he will alienate people and accomplish little?

You may be right, but there seems to be a fluidity to many of his statements that both serves to confuse me and make me wonder how rigidly he will keep to his ideals as president.

Good point that there won't be an actual mandate from the People.

David M. Smith said...

Hi again Kevin,

Yes, I think Senator Obama is a bit extreme and I don’t see any evidence that he has the ability to govern. Of course, I could be completely wrong because I am guessing based on what is known about Senator Obama. The actual truth could be different.

Coming to think of it though, I can’t name any Republicans or Democrats who do have a long history of governing as an executive other than the last two Presidents. Most governors quit or run for the Senate before gaining years of experience as an executive and most Senators are just speech readers and campaigners.

Buz said...

Actually, I see Obama as a puppet. If he is elected his arms and mouth will be moving, but some one else will be pulling the strings and putting the words in there.

That is the only way I see that he has gotten this far. He was chosen because he is a good "poster boy" for those who really want power but have no chance in heck of getting it. He speaks well ... when he has a prepared speech, he takes good pictures, and he is black, which means that if you oppose anything he does, you're a "racist".

He has no experience doing anything even remotely close to what a president needs to know how to do, so the only reason I can see for him even being put into the field of nominees is so that those who pull the strings have a mindless puppet they can control.

There was an old Fairy Tale about an emperor who had no clothes ... this time the clothes have no emperor in them.