"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Friday, November 4, 2011

Bill O'Reilly: Why Experience Matters

Last night I was reminded how Rudy was the leading the polls through the summer and into the fall in 2008, and the McCain campaign was on its last legs after some of his paid staff had spent all his money.  When McCain fired them, they went back to Romney.  Amazing isn't it -- Rove was hard at work in 2008 to elect Romney and was up to his usual dirty tricks we have seen on display this election for Romney once again.

The best reason to vote against Romney is not to have Rove near the White House.  Was Rove the leak to the Cain campaign on Chris Wilson who works for a Perry Super PAC not the candidate or Curt Anderson who works for Perry who gave a very good interview on CNN that he was not the leaker.  Anderson said he  knew nothing about this from Cain which Cain has now admitted he might not have told him after saying he did tell him.  If he had told him, I would bet money that Anderson would not have worked for his campaign.

Cain went after Perry again last night twice after his campaign backed off and some people think that if Cain is going down he is going to try to take out Perry for Romney.  If that is true, it speaks volumes about the attacks on Perry by Cain and Block.  Why does he hate Perry so much?  Is it because Perry is ethical and stands up for his beliefs even if some of them are not popular with the far right or some of the new Tea Party types posing as conservatives who are actually Democrats.

There are more new Tea Party groups then I can count now.  They are springing up right and left and all have my email address.  Since I was never part of the original Tea Party movement, where did they get it.  Is Rove behind this or is it Ailes at Fox News or the Koch Brothers.  Throw a dart!  Some of you might think that I blame Rove for a lot but his fingerprints are everywhere.  Ask Sarah Palin what she thinks of him or others.  He has been after Perry starting in 1998 and hasn't let up as he has tried to take him out in the two recent years as Governor's races.

Word is that Cain is pretty much out of control and won't listen to his advisers when they have told him not to continue to attack Perry.  Then we have some of the conservative pundits who are going full speed ahead reporting the Cain spin instead of the facts and blaming the media instead of Cain.  Their defense of his Super PAC using the term 'lynching" is reprehensible.  I can guarantee you if Cain was white, those same pundits would have thrown him overboard just like they did Foley.  The scandals are not limited to Democrats and any pundit or Conservative who thinks that it is has their head buried in the sand.  We have a group of men in both parties who consider themselves God's gift to women and it is an insult to women.

How many of these Conservatives doing all the talking in support of Cain are actually Republicans?  We know Hannity is not a Republican and would be willing to bet a lot of Conservatives telling Republicans what to do are not Republican.  

On top of all of that comes this article from O'Reilly about the real reason Cain should not be elected -- lack of experience and frankly lack of knowledge of how Government works or the Constitution, I might add.  This is what is being covered up by the scandal.  Is this what the Cain camp wanted all along not to have to defend his positions?

Is Cain drip, drip, dripping this to hide his lack of experience and some of his dumb ideas that the Democrats would throw at him if he received the nomination.   Still have not recovered from the electrified fence on the border, or that he is going to sign a Constitutional amendment, or will not sign a bill over five pages in length.  Then you discover that Cain has been a lobbyist and is not an outside the beltway type. There are not more inside the beltway types than lobbyist.  He is the associate minister in one of the most liberal black Baptist Churches in America which these same pundits who went after Rev Wright won't touch his minister who uses Malcolm X as his guide.

Bill O'Reilly has a handle on the real reason that Cain should not be the Republican nominee -- experience which is thinner than Obama's.  The fact that Cain was willing to change his 9-9-9 plan for the empowerment zones of the urban areas should tell you all you need to know.  Empowerment zones are a code word for minority areas of the city where billions of tax dollars have already been funneled over the years.  Now he wants to give business owners a tax break so when they hire people it will come off their taxes.  If that is not ripe for fraud nothing is.

So who are these conservatives supporting Hermain Cain?   Tea Party types who were Democrats or still are or the far right that thinks the liberal media never reports the truth and the conservative media never lies.  The fact that so many conservative pundits have managed to demonize the media is missing the fact that today's young media for the most part is pretty honest and and always have sources.  Guess six sources are not enough for some of these pundits who have refused to disclose their relationship with Cain like Hannity.

Pollsters can say all they want that it hasn't affect his numbers or his campaign talking about fundraising numbers which you won't find out until January, but in the end when Republicans go in the booth to vote, most are not going to vote with this in his background especially when he has followed the same path as Clinton -- deny, deny, deny, and then drip, drip, drip, and then attack others.  Note that I said Republicans not conservatives because a lot of the conservatives posting are not Republican and from 3rd parties.

The bottom line, however, should be about the lack of experience by Cain which is being covered up by his scandal.  O'Reilly has it correct.
Why Experience Matters
Voting for any political candidate is a gamble. But supporting one who is light on policy achievement is a long-shot play. 
Put aside Herman Cain's social problems for a moment, and look at his resume: Successful businessman with a patriotic streak. That's pretty much it. Yet, Mr. Cain leads the Republican field in some polls, prompting a new Quinnipiac survey to ask, "Does the fact that Herman Cain never served in public office make you more likely/less likely to vote for him, or doesn't it make a difference?" 
Well, 43% said it doesn't make a difference, 41% would be less likely to vote for Cain, and just 14% are more likely to support him. 
The takeaway from this poll is that close to 60% of Americans don't believe any political experience is necessary in order to run the country. 
Looking back, only two American presidents have ever been elected without political or military experience. William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover had scant public sector exposure (and we know how that turned out with Hoover), but the vast majority of chief executives had politics in their blood. 
Barack Obama might be an exception to that rule. His experience in the Senate was short and rather ordinary. The president has a strong legal background, but little hands-on policy experience. 
That has caused him major problems, especially with the economy. Mr. Obama, a devoted liberal, bought the idea that massive federal spending would ramp up the private sector. It did not. It never has. But because the president believed he could combine economic growth with social justice, he did not listen to opposing points of view. And here we are three years later with massive economic pain. 
The lesson is that experience counts. Like President Obama, Herman Cain is a charismatic speaker. He is forceful, yet accessible. Millions of folks like him and that for which he stands. But, truthfully, Cain simply does not know enough about the world to formulate specific future strategies. If he is elected to the presidency, he would have to rely on a bevy of advisors, just as President Obama has done. Paging Lawrence Summers! 
We are living in a complicated, dangerous world where what happens in a chaotic nation like Greece can cause the Dow to drop 300 points in a day... where a rogue country like Iran can directly threaten us and get away with it... where our alleged ally Pakistan can hide bin Laden for years, and not pay any price. Even Lincoln and Washington would be up nights dealing with problems like these. 
Thank God that President Obama appointed Leon Panetta to blow up the al-Qaeda and Taliban thugs. As CIA chief, Panetta has served the president extremely well and largely taken foreign policy criticism off the election table. Mr. Obama got lucky with Mr. Panetta. The president has been unlucky in other advisory areas. 
So, experience does matter. Voting for any political candidate is a gamble. But supporting one who is light on policy achievement is a long-shot play.  
Source:  Bill O'Reilly 

No comments: