Is this guy really ready for this position. Be honest with yourself.

[Guest]

“From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, To the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, He logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days. I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.”



Columnist Cheri Jacobus

[Guest]

"""143 days. I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.”""

:clap2: 1rnfl :yikes:

[Guest]

For an interesting article on Inexperienced vs. Unqualified, please check out the following:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-09-28-politicians-cover-usat_x.htm

[Guest]

I agree completely with you. His charisma seems to suck many people in to this realitilly unknown person. The real question is does he have the inner qualities and knowledge to be President of the United States?

[Guest]

So, on that note I guess our choices should be clear!

[Guest]

I wonder why this is in the restaurant discussion at present?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[Guest]

I wonder why this is in the restaurant discussion at present?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.”
I think it has to do with refrigerators :joke:

[Guest]

The choices aren't what I would have envisioned on either side. HOWEVER, Obama has no resume. What has he done? I think we know what he is and who he is now. I'm saddened at how the Democrat Party has gone off the left deep end. I really felt the tilt when the Screamer took over as Chairman.

[Guest]

Travel: A lot of talk without saying anything. What qualifications this guy has? Being a lawyer? His achievements: Getting a job-training site set up for getting an after-school program for young people put in place. See if you can name something else.

[Guest]

I wonder why this is in the restaurant discussion at present?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama


Maybe because it's food for thought? ::)

[Guest]

Efrahin - my only point is that not all of our successful leaders had what other's might describe as "qualifying experience." Some criticized Reagan for this as well, yet he was immensely popular and admired by many.
I don't care to get into a back and forth on "see if you can name..." I do my own research on issues and candidates and am not posting to change anyone else's opinion.
All I am suggesting, with this as well as the lobbying topic, is that we look at both sides of each issue.

[Guest]

The facts of the matter are he is in no way qualified. He has no track record as a State Senator or US Senator let alone be President of the USA.
I know this thread won't get far without the usual partisan bashing, but be that as it may.

If this were any, ANY industry in the USA looking for the President of a International, International President, his resume' would not make the cut. I can say that from personal experience in weeding out the unqualified.

He is the Dems nomination survivor....to date, hence their candidate....good, bad or indifferent.

He will be shined up and presented as the new best for America.

When all other rationale fails, remember he is a politician, and for this it doesn't matter what party....if his lips are moving he is lying!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No matter what he says now, should we be so unfortunate or to others fortunate for him to win the Presidency....all will find out sooner than later he, like all his predecessors will not be able to deliver on most of what he is pedaling to the naive.

That has been proven by most all prior Presidents and has nothing to do with party.....

Anyway, it is too bad there are no better options for either party....so may the best showman win.....and GOD help us all.

BTK

[Guest]

Oh, I'm sorry. When I saw the title of thread, I thought it was referring to John McCain... :dontknow:

[Guest]

Hey jimmy, cute.

[Guest]

I don't think either Obama or McCain are good choices for the position. Obama lacks experience and McCain is showing some worrisome signs of aging. Let's just hope that whoever is elected will have the wisdom to rely on qualified advisors.

[Guest]

I don't think either Obama or McCain are good choices for the position. Obama lacks experience and McCain is showing some worrisome signs of aging. Let's just hope that whoever is elected will have the wisdom to rely on qualified advisors.


And... Hopfully, they won't be the same "qualified advisers" that George W. and Congress relied on.

[Guest]

Efrahin - my only point is that not all of our successful leaders had what other's might describe as "qualifying experience." Some criticized Reagan for this as well, yet he was immensely popular and admired by many.
I don't care to get into a back and forth on "see if you can name..." I do my own research on issues and candidates and am not posting to change anyone else's opinion.
All I am suggesting, with this as well as the lobbying topic, is that we look at both sides of each issue.

In many ways, the best qualifying experience is as a State Governor, regardless o the size of the state. You have almost all of the same offices subordinate to you as a president (albeit at a lower level) and have to balance all of those equities simultaneously.

[Guest]

...why are we spending so much time continuing the debate on the relative levels of experience of the two candidates for President?

I might suggest that a more productive use of bandwidth might be to debate which of the two candidates are likely to produce some real change in the direction our political leadership has taken us in the last eight years. If one likes what has happened during that time and wishes that the policies of our government be continued for another four years, the choice is clear...vote for John McCain. If one is dis-satisfied with the present situation, in many different ways, and wishes for Presidential leadership that is more likely to take the country in a different direction, the choice is equally clear...vote for Barack Obama.

Why should the debate on experience continue? The two men are who they are. They've both been pretty clear on what they stand for and how they think things should be run in the next four years.

Doesn't it boil down to a question of do you think that lots of changes are needed domestically, economically, internationally, in defense, in social programs, in education, etc.? Or would you be satisfied if the situation and problems confronting our country continued for another four years?

If we consider the alternatives, our November choice seems pretty clear. That choice has little to do with the relative level of experience reflected on the resumés of the candidates.

[Guest]

I don't think either Obama or McCain are good choices for the position. Obama lacks experience and McCain is showing some worrisome signs of aging. Let's just hope that whoever is elected will have the wisdom to rely on qualified advisors.


Barefoot: I have to agree with you. :agree:

[Guest]

I think Kahuna said it best. His words should make your vote very clear.

[Guest]

The premise above states if you want more of the same vote for McCain. And if change or heading in a different direction then go with Obama. That makes a significant presumption or more appropriately a "leap of faith" that the non more of the same can deliver on ANY OF THE RHETORIC.

The following is not intended to be any party specific commentary, just the most recent example of undelivered RHETORIC....prior to Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker, she espoused how t"things" were going to be different. That when her party got the leadership it would be more productive, etc, et al. We all know the results of her first 100 day promises as well as the time since. It confirms a candidates propensity to say what they perceive needs to be said. And further confirms that it takes more than the words of the titular head of the organization to effect change.

When industry and business conduct executive searches they start our with specifications that at least attempt to find the best man for the job.

In both parties as stated time and again, it is unfortunate that is not the case......if we really wanted change we would find a way to get the best people to run for the job....

Lawyers and unproductive politicians would not make the cut.....I guess that accounts for most of the 545, eh!!!!

We have one candidate that is too old for the job.....the other is untested and as stated every day even in the media...they don't exactly know who he really is or what he really stands for....given the media bias that is profound!!!

BTK

[Guest]

Honestly, I so sick of this media bias whining. The media follows the story. Obama is THE story. McCain is not. It's that simple.

Media or no media, Obama gets my vote. :#1:

[Guest]

Hey Chelsea ~
Tell us what you REALLY think :-*

[Guest]

Let's see if I have this correct, commenting or expressing an opinion (right or wrong) about the media is called whining .....then we must conclude the continual Bush bashing (right or wrong) is, likewise, whining.

Tolerance or prerogative must be a function of where one sits on a given issue...eh?

Ah yes the privileges and burdens that come with the first amendment. ;D

BTK

[Guest]

When I hire a plumber or a dentist, I'd like to know if s/he ever has had any relative experience or not. If I'm paying for the service, I tend to avoid amateur plumbers and newly-licensed dentists. Why should it be any different with a public official? Shouldn't that person have training and experience to fulfill the duties and tasks associated with the job?

[Guest]

Doesn't it boil down to a question of do you think that lots of changes are needed domestically, economically, internationally, in defense, in social programs, in education, etc.? Or would you be satisfied if the situation and problems confronting our country continued for another four years?




The premise above states if you want more of the same vote for McCain. And if change or heading in a different direction then go with Obama.



So, you want change and I want change and the candidate promises change. But when we get to specifics, your change and my change have nothing in common, possibly different directions on the same issue or completely different issues. And though the candidate promises change, when you get into the details, if you can, you discover that his changes are not in sync with your desires.

In theory, one knows what a candidates general positions are on a variety of issues and his guiding beliefs. From that, you can extrapolate how he will lead and the decisions he will make in multiple situations. No one wants or should expect surprises from an elected official one supported. Anyone who votes for someone simply because they want change gets what they deserve.

[Guest]

Let's see if I have this correct, commenting or expressing an opinion (right or wrong) about the media is called whining .....then we must conclude the continual Bush bashing (right or wrong) is, likewise, whining.

Tolerance or prerogative must be a function of where one sits on a given issue...eh?

Ah yes the privileges and burdens that come with the first amendment. ;D

BTK

That is my opinion, and now you've had yours. Where's the confusion? :dontknow:

Chelsea

[Guest]

...simply opt out of the voting process. In a democracy, that seldom works.

Am I happy with the lack of progress in Congress since the Democrats took over in the mid-term elections? No.

Is there an explanation for the lack of progress of any kind since the Democrats took over the majority? I suppose the answer could be maybe--threat of filibuster by the opponents, presidential veto, etc. But if there actually were any statesmen or stateswomen in leadership positions in the Congress, the answer to that question would also be NO.

On a question of whether things might get better with the Democrats gaining a greater majority--particularly a veto-proof majority in the Senate--maybe there's hope. We'll find out soon enough. It might be the first time in decades that the President and both houses of Congress were all controlled by the same party. If nothing gets done then, I don't know what the answer might be...a coups?...a benevolent dictatorship?

As far as the presidential candidates are concerned, we should all listen and understand what their plans are, what their campaign platforms are. Then all we can hope for is that they are truthful. That would be unlike our current President who campaigned on one platform and then reversed direction and narrowed his focus to only a few of his personal ideologies, totally ignoring and failing to provide leadership to resolve any of the other glaring problems facing our country. If that happens again with either of the current presidential candidates, I will be deeply saddened and frustrated beyond any ability to express by feelings.

The ship of state changes direction very, very slowly...almost imperceptably. I hope and pray that a change of direction in the governance of our country is actually underway and I just haven't been able to see it.

[Guest]

Obama does not reflect the kind of change I'm looking for. Change for change sake does not cut it, even if he was able to deliver, which he likely cannot because of his lack of experience.

[Guest]

Simply put, Obama is "all hat and no cattle".

[Guest]

Well, George W. Bush had the hat and the cattle. This country has been left knee deep in manure to prove it. ;)

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure that lightning bolt that burned down the house the other day was George Bush's fault. Benj

[Guest]

If you took a poll, I think the American public would agree! ;)

[Guest]

[I can't agree more with Kahuna. Nicely said. :bigthumbsup:
...simply opt out of the voting process. In a democracy, that seldom works.

Am I happy with the lack of progress in Congress since the Democrats took over in the mid-term elections? No.

Is there an explanation for the lack of progress of any kind since the Democrats took over the majority? I suppose the answer could be maybe--threat of filibuster by the opponents, presidential veto, etc. But if there actually were any statesmen or stateswomen in leadership positions in the Congress, the answer to that question would also be NO.

On a question of whether things might get better with the Democrats gaining a greater majority--particularly a veto-proof majority in the Senate--maybe there's hope. We'll find out soon enough. It might be the first time in decades that the President and both houses of Congress were all controlled by the same party. If nothing gets done then, I don't know what the answer might be...a coups?...a benevolent dictatorship?

As far as the presidential candidates are concerned, we should all listen and understand what their plans are, what their campaign platforms are. Then all we can hope for is that they are truthful. That would be unlike our current President who campaigned on one platform and then reversed direction and narrowed his focus to only a few of his personal ideologies, totally ignoring and failing to provide leadership to resolve any of the other glaring problems facing our country. If that happens again with either of the current presidential candidates, I will be deeply saddened and frustrated beyond any ability to express by feelings.

The ship of state changes direction very, very slowly...almost imperceptably. I hope and pray that a change of direction in the governance of our country is actually underway and I just haven't been able to see it.
quote author=Villages Kahuna link=topic=8685.msg76389#msg76389 date=1217396745]
...simply opt out of the voting process. In a democracy, that seldom works.

Am I happy with the lack of progress in Congress since the Democrats took over in the mid-term elections? No.

Is there an explanation for the lack of progress of any kind since the Democrats took over the majority? I suppose the answer could be maybe--threat of filibuster by the opponents, presidential veto, etc. But if there actually were any statesmen or stateswomen in leadership positions in the Congress, the answer to that question would also be NO.

On a question of whether things might get better with the Democrats gaining a greater majority--particularly a veto-proof majority in the Senate--maybe there's hope. We'll find out soon enough. It might be the first time in decades that the President and both houses of Congress were all controlled by the same party. If nothing gets done then, I don't know what the answer might be...a coups?...a benevolent dictatorship?

As far as the presidential candidates are concerned, we should all listen and understand what their plans are, what their campaign platforms are. Then all we can hope for is that they are truthful. That would be unlike our current President who campaigned on one platform and then reversed direction and narrowed his focus to only a few of his personal ideologies, totally ignoring and failing to provide leadership to resolve any of the other glaring problems facing our country. If that happens again with either of the current presidential candidates, I will be deeply saddened and frustrated beyond any ability to express by feelings.

The ship of state changes direction very, very slowly...almost imperceptably. I hope and pray that a change of direction in the governance of our country is actually underway and I just haven't been able to see it.
[/quote]

[Guest]

...why are we spending so much time continuing the debate on the relative levels of experience of the two candidates for President?

Doesn't it boil down to a question of do you think that lots of changes are needed domestically, economically, internationally, in defense, in social programs, in education, etc.? Or would you be satisfied if the situation and problems confronting our country continued for another four years?

If we consider the alternatives, our November choice seems pretty clear. That choice has little to do with the relative level of experience reflected on the resumés of the candidates.


:agree: kahuna, you nailed it right on the head. That's exactly what has already made up my mind.

[Guest]

Perhaps, I'm missing something (which wouldn't be the first time)....

If the potential office-holder does not have the education, training and experience to fulfill all of the duties and tasks required of the office-holder, then the potential office-holder will either be destined to make some serious errors-in-judgment despite having the best of intentions or be darned lucky.

So far, neither potential office-holder has indicated who will be among their key advisors, and apparently much of necessary education, training and experience will have to be from those advisors.

So, the bet then becomes which candidate - through a combination of personal education, training and experience; combined with that of his advisors - can best be President.

Again, since neither candidate has disclosed who will fill these key advisor roles, the only comparative is their personal qualifications.

I guess I am not much of a risk-taker, because I have a darned hard time accepting the "trust me, I can change things" Pied Piper concept. Change as a rallying cry can be hypnotic, especially among the young who rebel against everything associated with the "old folks." And if there is going to be change, then there had better be more than "inspiring rhetoric" behind it or we will all Pay the Piper big time!

There are many things I'd like to see changed, but several of those only require tweaking rather than being gutted. And some of those things I'd like changed run totally counter to the position of both Parties.

Most of all, I don't want change which only results in a bigger tax bite taken out of my hide.

The last few weeks of the campaign will hopefully bring more substance than style. As a woefully analytical type, I like reviewing detailed documents which describe the what, when, how and how much for any continuation of action, as well as for any change or new start.

Depending on the item/action/program, change can hurt a whole lot more than status quo. The skill most necessary of the President is to recognize which remains, which is tweaked, and which is gutted. Broad-brushing it all into one package is too simplistic, but definitely hypnotic.

[Guest]

A lot depends on the vice presidential candidate.

As far as experience is concerned, remember Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman. Although he had been in the Senate he had held no important committee positions. FDR didn't have much use for him. After all FDR was a shoo-in and could have had a trained chimp for a running mate and still would have won.

I was too young to vote in that election but I didn't have much use for Harry either. ( I was from a Republican background).

Turns out, Harry was a pretty good president. He was blind sided when FDR died. He was never in FDR's inner circle. However, he applied good old common sense, didn't lie, didn't cheat and "Gave 'em Hell". Oh, and didn't get rich either.

I am an unaffiliated voter. Neither major party has earned my support.


DC

[Guest]

If you don't like either candidate whose fault is it? Yours and mine. How involved did we all get in our preferred political party to see that someone we felt comfortable with was nominated? If we are not actively involved in the process we are not fulfilling our responsibility as a citizen! If you have so far, and continue to have, an active involvement in the process and can discuss the differences in issues between the candidates than I will respect your opinion. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.

[Guest]

Experience......I recently saw George Will on CSPAN discussing a book he has written and in that discussion he was talking about how the Obama campaign always refers to JFK's age when speaking of whether he is ready or not. Seems that JFK screwed a lot up early on...including the management of the Bay of Pigs and a few foreign relation issues and Will claims that one of the reasons we got into Vietnam was the JFK was searching for some way to leave his mark.

Experience does count..it is only one of the issues but it surely counts.

My largest fear with Sen Obama is his training, mentors and associates. It it crammed with marxist and socialists.

[Guest]

I am curious, could you please list the Marxists by name? Such a statement sounds very familiar, like a Senator from Wisconsin back in the 50s stating "I have a list of communists in the State Department." but never providing the list.

[Guest]

I am curious, could you please list the Marxists by name? Such a statement sounds very familiar, like a Senator from Wisconsin back in the 50s stating "I have a list of communists in the State Department." but never providing the list.
__________________________________________________ ______

Surely....not in any particular order...

SAUL ALINSKY....A fellow who lived and died in Chicago in 1972, the author of "Rules for Radicals"..one of his students was Cesar Chavez, and actually Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis on this guy but it was not allowed to see the light of day during the Clinton presidency. The following quote is from a writer who wrote on the connection between Sen Obama and Alinsky..."Finally, in 1983, he decided to follow in the footsteps of one of his heroes, radical leftist and communist fellow traveler, Saul Alinsky. He concluded, "That's what I'll do… I'll organize black folks at the grass roots… for change.". However this is from his memoirs "among his friends he included "the more politically active black students, foreign students, Chicanos, Marxist professors, feminists, and punk rock performance poets."
This is a quote from Sen Obama discussing some things about Alinsky....""Sometimes the tendency in community organizing of the sort done by Alinsky was to downplay the power of words and of ideas when in fact ideas and words are pretty powerful. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.' Those are just words. 'I have a dream.' Just words."

There is a lot more out there but I am trying to keep away from the facts twister.

FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS...A labor activist known for his communist connections. He died in 1987 but during the 70s Sen Obama had a very close relationship with him and this is the guy that when Sen Obama refers to Frank his advisor that folks say he is referring to.

Again, I am trying to stay away from some of the other things out there because to my knowledge no verification on some stuff but lots and lots of smoke.

WILIAM AYERS...one of the famous WEATHERMEN of the 60's who bombed and killed. I cannot comment on any relationship here because the only facts are that Ayers contributed to Obamas campaign which in itself means nothing...they did served together at the same time on a board or two in Chicago however.

Now, I could add that Sen Obama has received an enthusiatic endorsement from the American Communist party or mention Rev Wright, etc, but my point is and always has been on this...

My concern with Sen Obama is that there is NO list of accomplishments for him...if you look at the current legislation he proffered in Congress (Global Poverty Act)..that is pretty socialist, and he himself has said he wants to "reallocate the worlds resources".....Lacking any achievements to make a consideration on, TO ME...it would seem that his training and past associates and those he calls mentors would be most important. Now, I find the above plus more but much of that falls into a catagory of hearsay...but this is what I have to go on...nothing more.

This is my concern...I am NOT a supporter of Sen McCain....I agree with some and disagree with other things he has done or stood for. In the case of Sen Obama, my concern is simply that he seems to stand for a very far left, socialist program and that is something I oppose.

I am open minded if you can allay any of my fears !

[Guest]

By the way OHIOGOLF, I could not agree with you more in being concerned about mimicking that Sen McCarthy on this guy or any others.
Problem is with Sen Obama who has done so very little....actually served in Congress for such a very short number of days, you gotta judge him somehow. Sure you can go with your "gut" and thats fine but I tend to look into things especially this year because CHANGE is such an easy easy thing to say with the mood of the country and that is my concern.

[Guest]

Well, there's no question McCain has more experience - he's 72 years old!

What it comes down to is choosing the candidate who has less experience but has good ideas and good solutions, or the candidate with more experience but bad ideas and no solutions. Many people think the candidate who has good ideas is more likely to lead the country in a new and better direction.

[Guest]

Well, there's no question McCain has more experience - he's 72 years old!

What it comes down to is choosing the candidate who has less experience but has good ideas and good solutions, or the candidate with more experience but bad ideas and no solutions. Many people think the candidate who has good ideas is more likely to lead the country in a new and better direction.
__________________________________________________ ______________--

I did not reference experience DIRECTLY. I simply was making the point that since Sen Obama has none, then you should look more closely at his associates and mentors. That was my point !

If change will bring socialism or marxism to my country then I dont need it. I hate to use those words, I really do, but if you look at Sen Obama's short bio and those he CHOSE to be with and learn from, it just scares me. I will vote for Sen McCain not because of his experience, not because I support all he proposes but simply because as the Democrats seem to do pretty consistently they gave no alternative !

Also check out the new book by George Will where he makes the point how some experience does really count. He uses JFK and the numerous bungles he made early on and how we got into Vietnam PERHAPS as a result. Interesting stuff !

[Guest]

Bucco, why all this dancing around. Listen to Obama and his stand on the issues. It's that simple. IMHO he has better ideas. :#1:

[Guest]

Bucco, why all this dancing around. Listen to Obama and his stand on the issues. It's that simply. IMHO he has better ideas.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Oh I do know where he stands. I posted already on his proposed Global Poverty act which is the basis of socialism. Read TODAY'S Washington Post to find out what experts think of his tax proposals...I read this morning that analysists do not like at all his plan not to tax seniors with incomes over 50 thousand..I have heard him talk about negotiating with terrorists. I am well aware of where he stands even as he tries to move in these early days.

Listen, I would like to like Sen Obama...I really would, but I just cannot get on board with all the extreme left programs. I admit to being a conservative...I also know that President Bush in most areas has not been a conservative...I am not a huge supporter of Sen Mcain either but I think we have enough "social" programs in this country and I think the country is already a nation of enablers and elitists.

In any case, you like his programs then you have a liberal bent and that is fine....to each his own. I suppose we will just agree to disagree as there is no way in the world I could support such a sharp turn left.

[Guest]

CHELSEA24....in all fairness, I am sure that there is/are some proposals of Sen Obama that I would support.....tell me what of his proposals that you endorse so strongly, and please not the general chant of change :)

[Guest]

Did anyone watch the program Hannity and Colmes last night?????

[Guest]

Why should American citizens place a Democrat as President after they voted in a totally do-nothing Congress from which we are all suffering now?

[Guest]

Regardless of the qualifications of any candidate for President, is it likely that he could make decisions and conduct himself in a manner any more damaging to the U.S. than has happened in the last eight years?

I guess a second question might be: is anyone really qualified to assume the role of the chief executive of the most powerful country in the free world? I think it's a matter of degree and no one is truly qualified for that responsibility. In the last fifty years we've had governors, senators, congressmen, generals and aristocrats in the White House. Some have been good and some have been bad. Trying to equate their performance as President with their resume is impossible.

[Guest]

So what kind of experience, in foreign policy, did the governor of Texas have? What kind of any experience any kind did he have? Remember he was the one that traded Sammy Sosa to the Cubs.......

[Guest]

1rnfl cologal! You're so funny and you're so right! :bigthumbsup:

[Guest]

Just for the record. I get so tired of everyone saying Sosa was traded to the Cubs. Sammy Sosa was traded to the White Sox. Bush may or may not have had anything to do with it. Usually the General Manager takes care of trades. Sammy was not the player he later became, when he was traded to the Sox. When he was traded to the Cubs I wasn't happy. We gave up Bell, an established star, for a nobody. It was long after Sammy left Texas that he became a star. There are other things to bash Bush about, but this isn't one of them.

[Guest]

Actually I thought that one was true...but you know what they say:

A lie can travel half way around the world before the Truth puts its shoes on.

[Guest]

A lie can travel half way around the world before the Truth puts its shoes on.
__________________________________________________ ____________________--

AMEN AMEN AMEN

[Guest]

The 60's was a really bad time....I know I protested the Vietman war. So perhaps we need to see who William Aryes was and what he became after those times. And what the goverment did during that period to stop any "radical" group. Geez I got sent of to a small college in Kansas instead of CU because my parents wanted to keep away from all the goings on. I didn't remember this guy and had to look him up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[Guest]

But shortly after his first election, there was a very critical article written by one of the Washington think tanks criticizing Bush for having virtually no foreign relations academics or former diplomats in his administration. The article argued that a President needs several viewpoints of people who have studied various parts of the world and have well-founded opinions on what would happen if decisions of one sort or another were made by the U.S.

The article went on to describe how Bush attempted to educate himself with regard to foreign policy. The author of the article had considerable anecdotal evidence of a large number of meetings between then candidate Bush and the former and long-time ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan. While Bush 41 arranged meetings between several foreign relations experts and his son, Bush 43 apparently placed the greatest reliance on his schooling in foreign relations on the Saudi prince.

The Prince was also very close to then VP candidate Dick Cheney, particularly during the years when Cheney was CEO of the large oil-field supply company Halliburton.

If you care to recall, Prince Bandar bin Sultan's U.S. assets were frozen by court order after he resigned from his ambassadorship because of his involvement in extensive bribery with regard to an $86 billion oil-for-arms deal.

Now that I think about it--yeah, Obama is at least as experienced at our current President was at the same time in his political career. Why am I not surprised by the end results.

[Guest]

“From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, To the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, He logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days. I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.”



Columnist Cheri Jacobus

Finally someone who has brains!!!