Posted by Wayne Allyn Root at Root For America
We’re handing our country over to a man with no experience. No experience as a businessman, or as a government official. All because we dislike George W. Bush. America wanted ABB (Anything But Bush).
Well congratulations! We’ve now elected a man to govern America whose entire experience ‘governing’ is having served less than 4 years in the US Senate. During which time he never put his name on one bill of any significance. He never even held a meeting for the committee that he chaired!
He arrived in Washington as a celebrity and then, spent 4 years running for President. Worse yet, he now takes over the White House during the worst economic crisis of our lifetime.
People across America naively say they hope Obama will solve this economic crisis. Those who voted for him not only hope so, but believe it so.
I have a question for you. When I hire someone, I want to know about their skills and experience for the job they’re applying for. So, America thinks Obama can fix this mess. With what? Voodoo? How can he solve a business problem, when he knows absolutely nothing about business?
In the 25 years since we graduated Columbia University Class of ‘83 together, Obama has never started a business, run a business, or risked his money on a business deal. Not once in 25 years. During the campaign, he talked about creating millions of jobs. Well, the next one he creates will be his first. Good luck with that.
President-Elect Obama has never met a payroll, not to mention paying employee payroll taxes or health insurance. Yet his supporters, fans and voters think he holds the answers to a crumbling economy? I don’t think he could run a bakery, let alone the U.S. economy. How frightening is this
scenario?I feel like a father who’s fallen ill and had to hand over the keys to his business to his 16 year old son- whose entire prior business experience was running a lemonade stand at age 6. That’s what we’ve just done to the entire United States economy, except Obama hasn’t even run a
lemonade stand.My educated guess is Obama was the type of kid who got the neighborhood lemonade stand shut down by calling City Hall to complain. His complaint: the kid’s lemonade stand didn’t have a government-issued business license.
Lawyers to the left of me – lawyers to the right; but not a drop of common sense.
Let’s talk about the only serious experience Obama has. Experience that I consider quite a negative.
It’s not bad enough that he’s never had any business experience. It gets worse. Far worse. Obama is a lawyer. Lawyers mess up almost every business deal they get involved with. Why? Because of a deadly combination of big egos, combined with a lack of business acumen.
Lawyers learn absolutely nothing about business in law school. If they learned about business, it would be called ‘Business School.’ In law school, lawyers-to-be are taught how to sue businesses. There aren’t even offered courses on how to run one. There certainly aren’t any courses on how to run an economy.
Once out in the real world and practicing law, lawyers jump into business deals with confidence, bravado and gusto. As well as one goal in mind- screwing up every deal they can get their hands on- to prove how important they are. And to justify their fat fees.
Their huge egos force them to weigh in on things they know absolutely nothing about. After years of dealing with lawyers, I learned to appreciate one of the great “inside lawyer” jokes: What is the most amazing trait of lawyers? They can quote their fees without smiling.
This is one of the big problems of modern-day government. It’s made up of lawyers. Lawyers with some of the biggest egos on the planet. Lawyers interested in playing the game. Interested in acquiring power and control over your life. Because that’s what lawyers do.
These lawyers try to get government involved in every and any facet of our lives, no matter what. This whether they know a thing about what they are getting involved in or not! Why? Because these lawyers-turned-politicians want to justify their fat salaries and lofty titles. They learned this in Law School- how to act important, charge big fees and take control of everything they’re involved in.
Once these lawyers are elected as Mayor, to Congress, to Senate, or worse yet, to the White House- do you think they’ll ever let on that they don’t know what they’re doing?
Politicians will never admit government doesn’t have the solution.
If they did, they would lose their power and control over you.
President Obama will have to prove his brilliance and assert his power by trying to solve things - even if government can only make it worse. To a lawyer-politician, that’s far better than admitting they don’t know.
Obama and his wife are both lawyers. Neither have built a business. Neither have ever been exposed to the real business world. As a matter of fact, they weren’t even business lawyers- they were both civil rights lawyers and ‘community activists.’
Do you have any idea what that means? They have spent their lives suing and intimidating banks and businesses. The closest Obama ever got the banking system was as ACORN’s lawyer. Then, and as a ‘community activist’, he pressured and intimidated banks to lend to unqualified buyers. And on property
that was not worth the paper the mortgage was written on.This ‘affirmative action lending’ that banks were forced to do was the single biggest cause of the mortgage meltdown and implosion of the American banking system. Based on this “success” we’ve now put Barack Obama in charge of the entire United States economy?
So what’s the first thing a lawyer with a huge ego and no knowledge of business will think he should do as President? He’ll use the money and power of government to try and fix the economy. Conveniently forgetting it’s your money he’s playing with.
President Obama will create more laws while adding more regulations. He’s already said he wants to raise the minimum wage (thereby huring business and costing jobs). Of course, in the spirit of fairness, he’s planning on ending secret ballot voting for unions (This will instantly create an environment of intimidation and manipulation for dissenting union members).
President Obama is planning to raise taxes dramatically on our most successful entrepreneurs and business owners, America’s job-creators, to provide himself with more money to ‘fix’ the economy.
Obama will punish success, while rewarding people who expect handouts. He’ll “create” jobs by expanding government. He’ll spend billions on government projects. All while create millions of new government jobs for bureaucrats (increasing the size and power of government employee unions). He was so brazen, it was recently disclosed, that Obama sent letters in the days before the election to federal employees telling them how he’d give them more power and expand their ranks. And of course he will redistribute the wealth from taxpayers to union members by bailing out the Big 3 Automakers.
This is the least he can do to repay the huge contributions from those same unions.Hey dude – Where’s MY Bailout?
The Big 3 quietly received $25 Billion with a “B” just weeks ago. Few Americans noticed this during the giant distraction of the stock market meltdown. Now they’ve come back asking for $25 Billion more only weeks later.
Guess where the money will go? To pay for the same outrageous union pay, pension plans and lifetime health care that bankrupted the Big Three Automakers in the first place. We are simply subsidizing failed union contracts that destroyed the U.S. auto industry in the first place.
Of course, it also wiped out the city of Detroit, which now wants a $10 billion dollar bailout, and gave Michigan the worst performing state economy in the entire country. Gotta love those union contracts- the unions in Detroit are like Canadien Mounties- they always get you. They’ll either bankrupt you today…or tomorrow…or the next day. But they always complete the job. With
friends like that, who needs enemies?Does this sound like good business practice to you?
Of course, there is no choice for Obama and the Democratic Congress- they received millions of votes and tens of millions of dollars from auto unions and auto workers. They need to repay them today to keep their support, not to mention their donations in 2012.
Only lawyer-politicians could possibly dream up this agenda to ’save’ our economy. But what are they saving it from? From capitalism?
Obama won’t rest until the U.S. economy resembles France.’s The stagnant French economy is dominated by big unions and big government. There are few entrepreneurs or business owners in France- with taxes so high, there is no way for individuals to ever save enough money to open a business. Even if they did, the onerous taxes and regulations destroy their chances of success. There are only two viable career routes in France: work for government, or join a union and work for a big corporation. Is that what we want our economy to become? I don’t think Americans really want
Europe’s version of big-government social capitalism (a nice way of saying Socialism).“GM, Ford and Chrysler are literally dead men walking.”
Where does it all end? Government giving another $25 Billion to GM, Ford and Chrysler makes absolutely no business sense. Because of their outrageous union contracts, the Big 3 Automakers can never turn their companies around. They are 21st century dinosaurs - GM, Ford and Chrysler are literally dead men walking.
Their entire business is based on a failed model (excuse the pun). Notice that Honda, Nissan and Toyota aren’t asking to be bailed out. They’re building new plants across America with non-union employees. They beat the Big 3 U.S. Automakers by cutting costs and increasing efficiency. This is in large part by keeping their payroll costs down to $30 to $40 per hour, instead of the $70 per hour
that American auto companies pay to union employees. Don’t get me wrong- If you can make that kind of wage- GREAT! Go get it. But only if you can earn it without bankrupting your company, or asking taxpayers to bail you out. One thing is clear with the auto industry- those $70 per hour wages are a fraud- they can only work if they are subsidized by the U.S. government.Is it fair to pay $50 Billion (if that’s even enough) to the Big 3 Automakers while successful companies get nothing? Why would we reward failure and incompetence by the companies and unions? Oh, I forgot, that’s Obama’s business model. Spread the wealth around, punish the successful and reward
people asking for handouts (his voters).Who will pay for my bailout?
Many Americans are asking ‘who will pay for my bailout?’
I’m a small business owner. I’m having tough times as well. My friends with small businesses are all in big trouble right now. We’re struggling to survive. If you sell anything for a living right now, you are in big trouble- because American consumers have stopped buying anything. Small business creates a majority of private sector jobs in America and 75% of all new jobs. Aren’t we too important to the U.S. economy to fail? Who is bailing us out? If we create by far more jobs than the Big 3 Automakers, why isn’t there a small business bailout plan from the U.S. Treasury?
Is it because small businesses aren’t unionized? Or is it because they didn’t give huge donations to Obama and the Democratic Congress?
Allow me to present the free market alternative. It’s simple- get government out of the way. Any money government gives as ‘bailouts’, no matter to whom, is money taken away from you and me. It’s money taken from taxpayers, investors and business people who would have used it to efficiently create jobs and wealth. Now it’s been confiscated by big government who will inefficiently use it to create less jobs than the private sector could have created. You haven’t gained a thing with a New Deal or Great Society government program. For every job it creates, 2 (or more) jobs are lost in the private sector. Money doled out by government to ’solve’ this crisis, is money taken away from you and me, away from the taxpayers and job-creators.
Money given to the Big 3 Automakers is a gigantic waste, temporarily propping up (and rewarding) failed companies. One thing is certain about bailing out the auto industry- they’ll be back for more money…soon.
The free market alternative is to let the automakers go bankrupt or otherwise find their own way. Will they go out of business? Probably not. The courts will allow them to reorganize. They can and should renegotiate their union contracts, through bankruptcy. Once they do this, they’ll emerge as leaner and more efficient companies.
Then and only then they will be able to compete with Toyota, Honda and Nissan. If they don’t, they’ll be replaced by new auto companies with better business plans. That’s called capitalism.
Did the airline industry as we know it end when TWA went out of business? Of course not. Out of the ashes, Southwest Airlines emerged with a new business model. And it works! They get you there on time, don’t lose your luggage, charge low fares, and a nice profit. A profit both they and their
shareholders pay taxes on, too!TWA deserved to fail. If we had bailed out TWA, there may never have been room in the marketplace for a Southwest Airlines. What we need right now is a “Southwest Motors.”
The other choice to bankruptcy is a government bailout that allows the auto industry to continue with their reckless, bloated business model at taxpayer expense.
Most importantly, all of this money the federal government is giving away has to come from someone and somewhere. It’s being stolen from us, the American taxpayer, without explanation, discussion, debate or permission.
It’s not government’s money to give. It is our money- yours and mine. These endless bailouts will keep our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren enslaved. Enslaved by big government, with oppressively high taxes for generations to come. But then that was Obama’s plan in the first place.
45 responses so far ↓
1 richardwinger // Nov 22, 2008 at 12:16 pm
If one is talking about executive experience, then McCain doesn’t have any such experience either.
At least Obama has served in state government as well as in Congress. McCain never had any position in state government. Also when Obama was a community organizer, he interacted with local government; I don’t know that McCain ever had close dealings with any local government.
2 Steve LaBianca // Nov 22, 2008 at 3:48 pm
W.A.R. says, “We’re handing our country over to a man with no experience. No experience as a businessman, or as a government official.”
There are at least three errors, or maybe just flat out lies. as is commonplace with this man:
1-Obama has NO experience as a “government official”? Laughable on its face.
2-Having experience as a businessman is irrelevant . . . government is not business, can never be made to behave like business, as a coercive organizati0n (government) has no relevance to a voluntary organization (a business).
3-W.A.R. has ZERO government experience, which, according to his own (convoluted) logic would make him unfit to be president himself!
Yet, how many times did we hear of how “qualified” he would be to serve as president?
What an idiot!
3 Trent Hill // Nov 22, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“I don’t know that McCain ever had close dealings with any local government.”
Of course he did! He dropped bombs on a number of local governments in Vietnam, plus, he bankrupted and stole power from from local governments here in the US during his time in the Senate.
4 George Phillies // Nov 22, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“This ‘affirmative action lending’ that banks were forced to do was the single biggest cause of the mortgage meltdown and implosion of the American banking system. Based on this “success†we’ve now put Barack Obama in charge of the entire United States economy?”
Republican racist dogwhistle propaganda.
The speaker says ‘affirmative action = bad’ and the racist listeners hear something quite different. First, the lending requirement was that the same rules be enforced throughout, not that we have affirmative action in lending.
Second, the primary cause as is known by anyone familiar with the issue is underdetermined counterparty risk. Third, that happened a long time ago, and was tiny relative to the subprime loans, HELOC loans, 14th credit cards,…
“instead of the $70 per hour
that American auto companies pay to union employees”
There are no union employees getting $70 an hour. That’s another Republican baloney line.
“No experience as a businessman, ”
Unless you ran in a very heavily unionized craft shop with individual investors kibitzing, your experience as a businessman is worse than useless. It’s almost as useless as having been a military officer. The core people you deal with as President, namely Congress, do not report to you and will tell you where to go if you try to give them orders.
Mind you the idea that GM should be allowed to go broke or save itself is fine. Chrysler may have found a sugar daddy.
Indeed, the one American President who was a former union President — for all that he was slipping into senility — did a respectable job as President in terms of getting some of his way. That was Ronald Reagan.
5 Karole Noymann // Nov 22, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Ronald Reagan never met a payroll. Neither did Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerry Ford, Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.
6 Karole Noymann // Nov 22, 2008 at 6:04 pm
BTW has Ron Paul or Bob Barr ever made a payroll?
7 paulie cannoli // Nov 22, 2008 at 6:08 pm
BTW has Ron Paul or Bob Barr ever made a payroll?
Yes, both. Ron Paul has a medical practice, and has also employed people in his newsletter business, among other things. Barr has employees at Liberty Strategies.
8 Karole Noymann // Nov 22, 2008 at 6:21 pm
<>
I know Ron Paul is an obstetrician, but I’m questioning whether he has his own practice. I would assume that given his duties as a Congressman, and other political obligations, he would be affiliated with a group practice or a local hospital.
As to Barr he only got involved with Liberty Strategies in 2003 after his constituents gave him the boot from a life time career in government service, and I have no doubt he uses his “business” as a steppingstone to advance his political career. I guess one could argue that any lawyer-lobbyist has to meet a payroll.
Theoretically any candidate for public office with a paid campaign staff has to meet a payroll.
9 paulie cannoli // Nov 22, 2008 at 6:29 pm
wikipedia says
…Assuming the practice of a retiring doctor, Paul became the only ob/gyn doctor in Brazoria County…
…During his first term, Paul founded a think tank, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE). Also in 1976, the foundation began publication of the first monthly newsletter connected with Paul, Dr. Ron Paul’s Freedom Report (or Special Report). It also publishes monographs, books, radio spots, and (since 1997) a new series of the monthly newsletter, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, which promote the principles of limited government.
…After the election, Paul continued his medical practice until he returned to Congress. He also co-owned a coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate it after Paul returned to office.
In 1985 Ron Paul & Associates (RP&A), Inc. (minority-owned by Paul), also began publishing The Ron Paul Investment Letter…
10 Trent Hill // Nov 22, 2008 at 6:37 pm
“There are no union employees getting $70 an hour. That’s another Republican baloney line. ”
You are right that there are no Union employees recieving $70 an hour as salary. But when benefits are added in, yes, they do make more than $70 an hour. In fact, Chrysler’s union employees get up to $75 an hour when counting benefits, which are the true meat of Union membership.
http://www.chryslerlabortalks07.com/Economic_Data.rtf
Or
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/cancer-on-big-three-29hr-pay-gap.html
11 George Phillies // Nov 22, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Trent,
That’s not quite as simple as it sounds. Your number is charging the current employees with benefits paid to retirees, not numbers paid to the union worker. The actual money paid to current employees, including a reasonable number for pensions etc. is much more modest.
It is an expense, but saying a current employee is getting $70 an hour including his fringes is not really OK.
George
12 Trent Hill // Nov 22, 2008 at 7:01 pm
George,
You are correct that that number also includes retirees, but the point is really to prove that the Unions end up costing the COMPANY 70/hour per current employee. Which is true.
13 VirtualGalt // Nov 22, 2008 at 7:03 pm
The $70/hr number is really not that meaningful, in my opinion.
The typical worker’s base pay is about $30/hr. Mind you, that’s base. Excluding overtime (which many of them get a lot of). Excluding benefits (not those for retirees, benefits for the active force).
All in, the typical auto worker’s total comp is in the $100k/yr range, or a little higher.
They are very amply paid for what they do.
Not as amply paid as the management!
This sort of weird compact existed for years between the UAW and the managements of the big 3. It worked out OK as long as there was no competition.
This situation is uniquely suited to chapter 11 in my opinion, insofar as these businesses still do have viable economic models (cars have not been obsoleted) but do not have viable financial models.
14 Karole Noymann // Nov 22, 2008 at 7:57 pm
W.A.R. said, “My educated guess is Obama was the type of kid who got the neighborhood lemonade stand shut down by calling City Hall to complain. His complaint: the kid’s lemonade stand didn’t have a government-issued business license.”
This is really a cheap shot, I never had much respect for Root but what little I had is now gone. Anyway, I’d guess Root was the type of kid who took the other kids money after betting with him in a fixed card game.
15 Karole Noymann // Nov 22, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Actually, as a community organizer, I’d guess that Obama would be the one to provide free legal services to the kid so he could keep his lemonade stand open.
16 Trent Hill // Nov 22, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Karole,
I thought the same thing when I read it. Obama was probably the one trying to attain pro-bono services to keep the lemonade stand open.
17 richardwinger // Nov 23, 2008 at 1:41 am
George Phillies introduced me (in his comment above) to a fascinating new piece of information, that Ronald Reagan is the only president who was ever a union member. It sounds accurate to me, but I had never noticed that or thought about it.
18 Michael Gilson-De Lemos // Nov 23, 2008 at 2:32 am
I’m reminded of something a storekeeper in Louisiana said to me about the Governor back in ‘85.
“Our Governor, like most politicians, is a self-employed and experienced businessman. He’s in business for himself, and his business is giving everyone the business.”
19 Trent Hill // Nov 23, 2008 at 2:36 am
Michael,
Do you live in LA?
I just finished watching Oliver Stone’s JFK and am trolling wikipedia for interesting tidbits of LA history. =)
20 JimDavidson // Nov 23, 2008 at 2:38 am
Screen Actors Guild. Yeah, interesting thought.
21 NewFederalist // Nov 23, 2008 at 10:04 am
I am no fan of Root but I am surprised at how beaten up he is getting here. His article is full of typical hyperbole and exaggeration but plenty of things I would think libertarians and constitutionalists would support as well. If this reaction is to set the stage for him NOT to get the LP nomination in 2012 I guess I Can understand it. I think Milnes got a better reception elsewhere on this blog.
22 paulie cannoli // Nov 23, 2008 at 10:32 am
Trent,
MG lives in Florida.
23 Trent Hill // Nov 23, 2008 at 12:06 pm
hahahah. Milnes just isnt attacked because he isnt a threat. Meanwhile, Root has the support of Texas and a minority of the Reformers.
24 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Ah, libertarians are demonstrating their penchant for circular firing-squads.
Instead of addressing the meat and spirit of Root’s criticism, apparently some have decided to defend Obama on technicalities.
The essence of what Root is saying is correct: Obama has very little experience, votes “present” more than anything else and pretty much does what people around him tell him to do.
He’s an empty suit with no experience…is that somehow an incorrect assertion?
25 paulie cannoli // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I’m actually more concerned about all the highly experienced apparatchiks being appointed to his cabinet.
26 G.E. // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:23 pm
W.A.R. predicts Obama’s presidency will be a disaster? Wow. How much do I owe him for that lead-pipe lock of the week? Next he’ll predict that the sun will come out tomorrow or that when I flip the light switch, magic light will emanate from the bulbous glass objects in my light fixtures. This guy is a genius!
27 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Unlike all-knowing you, G.E., Root is telling other people who are not so omniscient.
28 VirtualGalt // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Well I’m not going to defend Obama, nor did I vote for him frankly.
The president is, among other things, CEO of the Federal Government. So some executive experience I think is helpful, and why former governors are generally considered better presidents.
I don’t think it’s essential that a president have owned or created a business… but I think it would be helpful if he/she had once *worked* in the private sector, and have some understanding beyond the abstract that someone does have to sell something at a profit to meet the payroll etc.
Do any of the people Obama is bringing in have any significant private sector experience? Or are they all career politicans and bureaucrats?
29 Karole Noymann // Nov 23, 2008 at 9:49 pm
“He’s an empty suit with no experience…is that somehow an incorrect assertion?”
“If an empty suit with no experience” is someone who was President of the Harvard Law Review, civil rights attorney, professor of constitutional law, Illinois state senator and US Senator before he became President-Elect of the United States, then I suppose Barack Obama is an empty suit with no experience.
This being the case, I definitely prefer an empty suit with no experience to a self-promoting, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard with as much experience and ethical values as a used car salesman.
30 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 24, 2008 at 12:13 am
President of law review is meaningless. It’s an empty term. Feel free to look it up.
I do not know what “civil rights attorney” means - what cases did Obama argue and in front of what courts?
Again, as an Illinois state senator, he voted “present” more often than not…so, again, meaningless.
He was a US Senator for two years before beginning his run. The extent of his experience is running a campaign for a position for which he didn’t have enough….wait for it….experience.
, I definitely prefer an empty suit with no experience to a self-promoting, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard
You prefer a Democrat to a Libertarian? you’re in the wrong place, sister.
31 Trent Hill // Nov 24, 2008 at 12:16 am
“You prefer a Democrat to a Libertarian? you’re in the wrong place, sister.”
Says who? I’d take Ron Paul, if he ran as a Democrat, over any Libertarian.
Party labels are meaningless.
32 paulie cannoli // Nov 24, 2008 at 12:17 am
self-promoting, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard with as much experience and ethical values as a used car salesman
Exceedingly rare traits in politicians and those aspiring to join them, yes?
33 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:13 am
Mr. Hill, are you saying that Wayne Root would be a less libertarian President than Obama?
I see your point. But the essence of the criticism is that Obama > Root, which is total horsehockey.
34 Trent Hill // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:32 am
I dont know where I said anything like that.
35 paulie cannoli // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:38 am
Steven,
You got me on that one too. Non-sequitur as far as I can tell.
36 TheOriginalAndy // Nov 24, 2008 at 3:00 am
“richardwinger // Nov 22, 2008 at 12:16 pm
If one is talking about executive experience, then McCain doesn’t have any such experience either.
At least Obama has served in state government as well as in Congress. McCain never had any position in state government. Also when Obama was a community organizer, he interacted with local government; I don’t know that McCain ever had close dealings with any local government.”
No expierence is necessary to be President. The only qualifications are as follows…
1) Be born in the USA.
2) Be at least 35 years old.
3) Have the ability to read and understand the Constitution and to follow what it says.
37 johncjackson // Nov 24, 2008 at 3:50 am
I don’t have any interest in defending Obama, but those who are attacking him are clearly McCain supporters. I DO have an interest in defending Libertarians from the idea that the Republicans are more libertarian than the Dems. Root is a big fan of McCain. He seemed more interested in putting down Obama, appealing to racists and the Republican-”libertarian” nuts, and supporting McCain than actually supporting Libertarian ideas.
38 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 24, 2008 at 8:44 am
If we want to get semantical about it, OK.
Generally speaking, Libertarians are libertarian.
Generally speaking, Democrats are not.
39 Trent Hill // Nov 24, 2008 at 10:49 am
What about Joel Winters, in the NH legislature? He was more libertarian than Barr or most other LPers.
40 Karole Noymann // Nov 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Root is a Reagan wannabee who, like Bob Barr, used to be a neocon warmonger before he took advantage of the opportunity to promote himself as a Libertarian.
I don’t trust him. There are some politicians I trust more than others, regardless of party affiliation or how they label themselves.
It may be politically incorrect to say this on a third party website but I would prefer an honest Democrat to a dishonest Libertarian. I suspect alot of Greens and Socialists would feel the same way.
41 Basherbasher // Nov 25, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Sorry Karole, but your argument just doesn’t wash:
“If an empty suit with no experience†is someone who was:
“President of the Harvard Law Reviewâ€
Where he published only one obscure and sophomoric paper in his 4-year tenure, and while serving as Editor (the first Black Editor in fact) published absolutely nothing.
“Civil Rights Attorneyâ€
A position in which, according to several of the senior partners, he essentially did little but write briefs, couldn’t be relied upon for any serious litigation, and in almost 11 years logged only 3,700 billable hours (hint: in case you’ve never actually held a job or accounted for payroll, that’s about 1.65 years of actual work) . A pattern of serious underachievement begins to emerge.
“Professor of Constitutional Lawâ€
He was a Lecturer, not the Professor he claims to have been (notwithstanding Northwestern’s ex post facto assertions to the contrary). Major difference. The formal title of “Professor” is not nonchalantly awarded by academic institutions, but anyone with a degree and some knowledge in the subject can lecture.
“Illinois state senatorâ€
How many wishy-washy, noncommittal “Present†votes did he cast in his term there, vs real votes for real legislation? Look it up.
“US Senatorâ€
Where he racked up a whopping 143 days of service before he hit the campaign trail to run for office (with both he and his wife asserting at the that he wasn’t ready to be President), during which time he authored/sponsored no significant legislation….
“Before he became President-Elect of the United States, then I suppose Barack Obama is an empty suit with no experience”.
He has no experience for the job at hand, period. Asserting that he’s qualified on the above bases is equivalent to believing you have to hire someone just because they can fill out a job application. Invoking the lack of experience of other past Presidents (some of whom did poorly, while some did well) will not bestow magical experience on Obama, and only time will tell if he’s good or bad.
Not to worry, however, because the third term of the Clinton Co-Presidency Cabinet will pull his strings wherever they want him to go. If you liked Clinton, you’ll probably love Obama. If you haven’t yet figured that he, like his predecessor is just a figurehead (albeit a palatable one for the left this time), then you aren’t paying much attention.
And to all of the reflexive Obama supporters here, making John McCain (or anyone else) dirty will never wash Obama clean. If you can’t stand on your own convictions with facts, deflecting the blame with “McCain’s worse†is not an effective argument for anyone over about five years old (“but….but… Tommy stole a cookie tooâ€). If the only defense you can rally for “your guy†is to point in the other direction, and say “he did tooâ€, you really have nothing to say. If it’s wrong for McCain (as much as I dislike the man), it’s wrong for Obama as well (as much as I really dislike him).
BTW, while what I’m about to say has nothing to do with running businesses, it does equate to experience. Reagan and Roosevelt had both been Governers, Nixon had been Vice President a Congressman, and a Senator, and Ford had been a Congressman for 25 years. Lincoln is the exception, and while you may or may not support his reasons, among other things he led us to a bloody internal war that had Americans killing each other for years.
Maybe a little experience is a good thing.
42 Janice G // Nov 25, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Good Article, I agree.
Obama stated in his own words when he entered the senate 4 years ago that he was not qualified to run nationally and would not do that. But, he did anyway. For those who state that having experience is not necessary, that is plain ridiculous. Try stating that on your next job interview.
Obama’s staff picks shows he is unqualified. He is chosing either ex-Clinton or Chicago personnel. His network is small because his experience is lacking.
It is probably true that people choose Obama because they didn’t want Bush. But, even Obama’s new economic team have given him the advice to NOT tax corporations, just as Bush indicated. Any moron would know that if you over tax corporations right now, you’ll send the entire economic system into the grave. But, he didn’t have the sense to know these things in advance.
43 paulie cannoli // Nov 25, 2008 at 9:59 pm
And to all of the reflexive Obama supporters here
LOL. Look around the site a bit. We don’t have too many people that support Obama (or McCain). You may wish to not make that plural - supporter would be more accurate. In case you hadn’t thought about it this way, the independent in IPR stands for people who prefer candidates other than the big two.
But thanks to Free Republic for linking us, even though they attributed the article to Austin Cassidy. I was the one who found it and posted it here, but I did not do much besides copy, paste and format, so I’m not too mad about it.
44 Basherbasher // Nov 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm
paulie cannoli :
I wasn’t referring to everyone here, just those few who do seem to be reflexively defending Obama. There seemed to be more than one. That’s OK. I can stand toe-to-toe with any of them.
And yes, an evil, “ignernt”, backwoods Southern Conservative like me actually figured out the “Independent” part of IPR, and understand its implications.
While I’m not convinced of the viability of alternative parties in today’s world, I’m deeply disappointed in what the Republican party has become in the last 15-20 years, and I am receptive to the ideas of others.
Hence my arrival on your shores. Once I establish a beachhead, and if I like it, maybe I’ll bring the rest of my Army.
45 TheOriginalAndy // Nov 26, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“26 G.E. // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:23 pm
W.A.R. predicts Obama’s presidency will be a disaster? Wow. How much do I owe him for that lead-pipe lock of the week? Next he’ll predict that the sun will come out tomorrow or that when I flip the light switch, magic light will emanate from the bulbous glass objects in my light fixtures. This guy is a genius!”
Yeah, Wayne Root is a real Nostradamus with this prediction. LOL!
Leave a Comment