Archive for 31 Mar 2009

Another look at the rookie. I think we’re paying way too much for this guy, both now and on his future performance, but who am I to judge, eh?

A Rookie President

by Thomas Sowell

Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.


No not NASCAR. You know; color of skin = whatever, etc. I’ll continue to treat you by your actions and what you have to say. Skin color means absolutely nothing to me, unless you make it an issue, then I get pissed.

More on that conversation about race from Larrey Anderson:

Immune from Race-baiting?

By Larrey Anderson

A funny thing happened to me a few weeks ago. I discovered that I seem to have at least a limited degree of immunity from the routine charges of racism regularly aimed at conservatives.  It was readers who informed me of this miraculous healing.

Several readers asked me to comment further after the appearance of my article “Racism, Eric Holder, my Son and Me” in the February 23, 2009 edition of American Thinker.

One of these readers is a friend and a well-known screen writer. I asked him why in the world he thought I should write more on the issue and what he thought I had left out of the first piece.  Here was his response:

Keep punching — you can tear down the schlockmeisters; you’re immune from the “Scarlet Letter” — R for racist — if you play it right; meaning, don’t let anger get the better of you; obviously, you are a good and loving person, and to be tarred, even obliquely, must be infuriating.

You ARE “allowed” to speak — you’ve put your blood and soul into this, and how dare any racial prohibitionists say otherwise?

My initial thought when I read his admonition to keep writing on this subject was, “Why am I allowed to speak on race?” I am, after all, just another middle-aged conservative white male who hails from a rural state. Pretty much the textbook definition of a racist by the liberal left in America.

Yet that initial piece received mostly positive responses — even by those on the left who posted in our comments section — and the piece was widely distributed on the Internet.

Were my opinions tolerated simply because I was fortunate and blessed enough to have adopted and raised a black baby? What if my son had been Korean? Or Hispanic? Would the arguments in the article have been treated with the same deference?


Is it me? Is it we? Has anyone else noticed that Obama never says “I did this, or I did that,” but almost always uses “we” when talking about policy?

There seems to be a lack of responsibility in Teh One. Either he refuses to accept responsibility, or is afraid of it. I haven’t figured that one out yet.

An old Army leadership principle; “Seek responsibility, and take responsibility for your own actions.” I think he could stand to brush up on the leadership manuals a tad.


From Politico:

“No, I think it’s the right thing to do; where we’ve got to make some difficult choices. Here’s what we did with respect to tax policy. What we said was that over the last decade the average worker the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat; even at times where, supposedly, we were in times of an economic boom.”

The last “we” doesn’t count.

Also from Politico:

“As a practical matter [working families’] incomes didn’t go up. And so what we said let’s give them a tax cut, let’s give them some relief; some help; 95% of American families. Now, for the top 5%, they’re the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I fall in that category.”

Here’s some more:

“And what we’ve said is, for those folks (top wage earners) let’s not renew the Bush tax cuts. So let’s go back to the rates that existed back in the Clinton era, where wealthy people were still wealthy, were doing just fine.”

At any rate, here’s the article that piqued my interest and caused me to notice this.

Obama’s Most Telling Answer

By Joseph Ashby

Liberal columnist E.J. Dionne got it right when he recognized that the charitable deduction question was the most significant moment of the recent presidential press conference. (Now no one can say I never agree with a liberal.)

Like so many of President Obama’s off-prompter remarks, his answer on charitable deductions exposes him for what he is: an ideologically driven man whose philosophy is based on falsehoods and whose public persona is merely a marketing scheme to acquire the power he really wants.

In the press conference, The Politico’s Mike Allen asked: “Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest rate deduction for mortgages and for charities and do you regret having proposed that in the first place?”