schizo2buyORnot is dumber than a box of rocks

[Raybyrnes]

To try and state that ny presidential candidate is dumb is ignorant in and of itself. Barrack Obama is a Harvard Lawyer. Definitely not lacking in itellect and probably one of the greatest speakers of our modern era.

John McCain has been in the Senate forever. Has done as mch as one can expect for his country.

Hillary Clinton. She is a woman who got into Yale Law at a time hen ther were not too many Female Lawyers.

And even Geaorge Bush. Say what you will but the guy went to Yale Undergrad and has his MBA from Harvard. There was a lot of nepitism but he was not the dumb ass many paint him out to be. Iraq had not worked out. He should be held accountable. Time will tell whther is was a complete failue or not.

Bottom line. We have good leaders in the Country and regardless of the party I vote for, I support the process and leadership that we have had and will have in the future. Arguing about inellect of our presidents if foolish.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[gandalf]

AFF, what are you doing on this thread? You’re being way too rational, dude. On the other hand, you __are__ helping to keep ‘schizo is a dumbass’ at the top of Active Forum Topics! So, many thanks…

[gandalf]

AFF, what are you doing on this thread? You’re being way too rational, dude. On the other hand, you __are__ helping to keep ‘schizo is a dumbass’ at the top of Active Forum Topics! So, many thanks…

[gandalf]

AFF, what are you doing on this thread? You’re being way too rational, dude. On the other hand, you __are__ helping to keep ‘schizo is a dumbass’ at the top of Active Forum Topics! So, many thanks…

[gandalf]

AFF, what are you doing on this thread? You’re being way too rational, dude. On the other hand, you __are__ helping to keep ‘schizo is a dumbass’ at the top of Active Forum Topics! So, many thanks…

[gandalf]

AFF, what are you doing on this thread? You’re being way too rational, dude. On the other hand, you __are__ helping to keep ‘schizo is a dumbass’ at the top of Active Forum Topics! So, many thanks…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: My apologies. S**t! Is this the ad hominem post?

Who am I supposed to be making fun of again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: My apologies. S**t! Is this the ad hominem post?

Who am I supposed to be making fun of again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: My apologies. S**t! Is this the ad hominem post?

Who am I supposed to be making fun of again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: My apologies. S**t! Is this the ad hominem post?

Who am I supposed to be making fun of again?

[Author]

Posts