Tuesday, January 17, 2012
I don't get it....
So our elite, Ivy League-educated president wants it so that you need to show photo ID to buy god-damned drain cleaner, but not to cast a vote? Now, granted, when presented with ridiculous and spurious documents dreamed up by foreign-owned tanker companies, I usually sign my name "Abraham Lincoln" or "M. Mouse" but for some reason it would make more sense to want to be sure that the people voting are who they say they are. I get asked my social security number when I want to check the balance on my fucking cable bill, and yet the 'Progressives' want Comcast to have better security than the goddamn polling employees.
Posted by Paul, Dammit! at 3:10 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I do get it. First, there is almost no voter fraud in the US. Second, the vast majority of people who lack the sort of ID required are elderly and on fixed incomes. They are statistically likely to vote -- wait for it -- Democratic.
It's just like the assault on unions. A concerted and long-term effort to screw Democrats and the middle class.
Yes, the president graduated from Ivy League schools. Why is that a problem? He got in by ability, not through some kind of legacy policy.
Anonymous, he's also never held a professional-level job that required actual experience. As a theoretician, I'm sure he was great at 'organizing' but theory doesn't hold up against experience. No one cares about academic benchmarks in the real world, as I'm sure you're aware. I don't think his GPA is a qualifier for anything but teaching, and ultimately, being well educated isn't enough. Say what you want, but EVERY other president in living memory had a real world job at some point.
A. von Spakovsky in an August National Review article:
The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous, given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indiana's photo-ID law in 2008, "Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists." The liberal groups that fought Indiana's law didn't have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6-3 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance.
Actually, he has held real world jobs. No, he hasn't worked as a mariner. He has worked as an editor, community organizer, legislator, author and educator. And, he has been successful in these endeavors.
From your perspective, how is his background different than the Republican presidential nominees? Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Gingrich was an academic before entering politics. Santorum's career started as a political staffer before he went into political office.
Your arguments as to his background just don't fly.
I'd say his background is very different from the Republican candidates- Gingrich had years of political experience before being thrust into the spotlight. He's a prima donna who has the language down, but not the intent, much like Obama. I do not much care for Newt, as he isn't much of a leader, and the idiots who put him up to this forgot about the fact that everyone got to see him at work way back when, and didn't like him then, either. Romney, who stands for all things that keep him in a job, had managerial leadership experience within a massive company- the people he worked for (the Bain shareholders) were pretty well enamored of him. Santorum has also, again got a heck of a lot more experience as a politician (years, as opposed to months). Both are deeply flawed.
The experience factor is far too telling to merely pass off as minutia. All the other candidates have a hell of a lot more time in the seat than did our president, and it shows. Gingrich and Obama are both guilty of trying to be Dean of the department instead of showing leadership, but that doesn't detract from their record when put up to a pepsi challenge. I contend that a lack of exposure to people from ALL social strata is a great weakness- Harvard Law is not the world writ small, and neither is a Chicago slum. Theorists just don't have a great record when thrown into the real world, IMHO.
Interesting, and valid, point you make when you say that "a lack of exposure to people from ALL social strata is a great weakness." In that sense, Obama actually tops the pool of candidates, showing an ability to work within all strata. There is no question that Romney has shown an ability to work in the boardroom (contrary to the popular myth, the boardroom and the government are two separate worlds - skills can translate, but they are different worlds with different goals). Romney's own comments about not making much money from speaker's fees over the last year shows how out of touch he is (I have no problem with the fact that he's wealthy). He earned close to 400K in fees. While it may not be a large proportion of his total income, it is a significant amount of money to the average American. Even if he meant only to say that the speaker's fees were not a large percentage of his income, he is an experienced politician (and professional speaker), and should not have made a gaffe of this nature. Otherwise, it shows his unawareness of the middle class.
Post a Comment