But I wholeheartedly agree with your bottom line!

I do not consider time as a representative on any level to count as the sort of experience I had in mind. I don’t consider the abstract, intellectual sort of decision that a congressman or senator makes when considering a bill to be relevant to be running a superpower. What I had in mind would attain from business, military, or executive experience.

I also note that you only list two from the modern era. I think you will agree that the experience it took to run this nation more than a hundred years ago is different qualitatively and quantitatively than what is called for today. Abraham Lincoln could receive walk-in visitors at the White House (and did, which was how the repeating rifle was introduced into the Federal armory after the Secretary of Defense rejected it on the grounds that “soldiers would use too much ammunition”). My historical knowledge allows me to speak only to Grant, Roosevelt, Carter, and Dubya.

Grant was a failure at everything until he was thrust into command during a major conflict, at which he was brilliant. He was then promoted to his level of incompetence (the Peter Principle) and was a miserable, though highly popular, president. So his command experience didn’t help him.

Roosevelt was both a leader of men in combat, which requires instantaneous life-or-death decisions, and Governor of the State of New York. I believe that was then the most populous state. Don’t know much about him, but I believe he was regarded as fairly effective.

Carter graduated Georgia Tech, was commander of a nuclear submarine, which requires high technical competence, governor of Georgia, then President. His softness toward tyrants (which today verges on treason) led to the debacle in Tehran. When he left office, we had double-digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. *Taken in itself*, his previous experience would appear to have had little bearing on his performance as CIC. (I know there were other factors; we can discuss those later.) But I don’t think much of him as a President.

Naturally, you think the same of Dubya. Bush II graduated Yale (grades aside–do you know what your physician’s GPA was? He still has a medical license, hee), was pilot of an aircraft requiring consummate flying skill, a party functionary, governor of Texas, then President. Other than lowering taxes and providing for national security, although I voted for him twice, I disagree with almost everything else he has done. But no large public buildings have collapsed due to enemy action since 9/11.

McCain has most of the positive attributes of all those listed above, as well as age, which *most* cultures consider an asset. He is strong on defense. Since we are at war with a relentless, vicious enemy, I consider this of primary importance. If you don’t have a nation, nothing else matters.

Obama has *none* of these things. His so-called experience is a sham, his record as a ‘successful legislator’ in Illinois owing to his being handed bills which others (Dems!) had written and his name being put on. He has not run a business. He has not been a leader of men. He has never had to make decisions which *directly* affected the lives of those for whom they were made. He is hazy about his past and his books have been shown to be full of inconsistencies, to be kind. He has a history of consorting with violent radicals; doesn’t even matter which way they lean, does it? If they were swastika-sporting skinheads, a stink would surely be made about it, but since he is black and they are leftists, it is discounted. Give him ten or twenty years to mature, then maybe. But as it stands, OBAMA IS NOT FIT TO BE A HEAD OF STATE.

It has been demonstrated under Bush–and Reagan–and JFK! fer crissakes, that lowering *income* tax rates *increases* investment and consumption, and that overall tax revenues go UP. Cutting said rates under Reagan by almost half more than doubled tax revenues. Youse can look it up.

I see a lot of agreement here. If We Da Peeps can make OUR bipartisan voice heard, I think that would send a unique message (read: shock therapy) to our so-called representatives.

Okay–question open to everyone. How do you think we should do it?And *quickly*.

If you say, “He has Biden and other experienced advisors to assist,” you make my point for me. The purpose of advisors is to present a spectrum of information and opinions; how would O. choose among them? Even scarier, what if the counselors tell him what they think he wants to hear, or all speak with one voice? **Obama has zero experience making critical decisions of any size,** and decision making is, after all, the job of the President.

Obama as Pres = FAIL

Obie is all that progressive and more. He ‘backed off’ on FISA because when you see the real national security picture, you know that it is a necessity. Most of the rest of the Dems approved it, too, for the same reason.

Congrats to the folks in Chitown and Illinois for being perceptive enough to know that his vaunted ‘experience’ stems from getting his name put on bills that other Illinois legislators created, and that all in the last year of his term there. It’s mostly smoke and mirrors with the lot of them, we all agree on that, but in his case it is rather more . . . accentuated.

I’d like to know the rest of your sentence, “Fair tax proposals aren’t . . . “You really should check it out at fairtax.org, as it addresses the needs of lower-income wage earners.

Read thru Ramsey’s piece again. I’m writing my reps; no matter which side of the fence you’re on, if you think this particular bailout is irresponsible, as I do, and that Dave’s solution is better, write yours and say so. Srsly.

My objection is the label that Obama is the Most Liberal. He’s not. It would be like stating that lemon juice is the most acidic substance out there. The error is about the qualitative measure of acidity being good or bad, but the quantitative error about the extremity of the level of acid.

One “n” – a place to eat Best. Food. Ever!
Two “nn”s – a meal.

Not aimed at you, just an overall observation as I watch these go down. I see conservative and liberal being tossed like epitaphs.

There, fixed that for you.

Note that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 97% of income taxes. Since those who earn more than $250 K comprise less than 0.5% of taxpayers, the crap about soaking the rich for ‘their fair share’ is revealed as the class-warfare (read: socialist) ploy that it is. Anyone who can do a little math (which lets out anyone with nothing more than a public-school education can see that hitting up fewer than 5% of taxpayers will have little effect on the revenues taken in. It just sounds good in front of blue-collar audiences.

Another thing that reveals it as a racial (NOT *racist*) ploy as well as classist is that Asians, male and female, earn more than other ethnic groups, including the Evil White Male.

Click my username for a Wiki on the numbers. fairtax.org, y’all!