Monday, December 25, 2006
A Blogger Asks, "What has Barack Obama Done," and The NY Times Answers: "He Voted for Condoleezza Rice"
We asked here what Senator Barack Obama has done in his 2 short years in the US Senate to warrant people calling for his election as President. It looks like the liberals do not like to hear this question: when blogger Mickey Kaus, no conservative, asked, The NY Times came back with a hilarious answer: He voted for Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State.
Wow! Now THAT is a record that should vault him into the White House!
First, Kaus' question:
More Obama Substance!
The answer from the Times? Hold your breath for full-on liberal lunacy:
Testing the Water, Obama Tests His Own Limits
That is some record.
But, the Times says in the next paragraph: "Hey! Nothing to see here!"
You see, it is all about who Bananarama is. His lack of a record, or the fact that he is wholly not ready to be a US Senator, much less President, is not relevant.
Move on, says the dumbkopfs at The Times. If we want Osama Barama as the next President, we will get him, his record be damned.
We asked here what Senator Barack Obama has done in his 2 short years in the US Senate to warrant people calling for his election as President. It looks like the liberals do not like to hear this question: when blogger Mickey Kaus, no conservative, asked, The NY Times came back with a hilarious answer: He voted for Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State.
Wow! Now THAT is a record that should vault him into the White House!
First, Kaus' question:
More Obama Substance!
1) Has Obama grappled seriously and smartly with the big questions of the day; and
2) Has he, in the course of this grappling, told Dems something they don't want to hear, or demonstrated independence from Dem interest groups that enforce the party's line in unfortunate ways (e.g., teacher's unions impeding education reform, seniors unwilling to accept any Social Security cuts, populists who pretend bargaining-down drug prices will largely solve the problem of health-care costs, etc.).
The answer from the Times? Hold your breath for full-on liberal lunacy:
Testing the Water, Obama Tests His Own Limits
He has demonstrated an occasional willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy, including his vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, which at the time infuriated liberals (13 Democrats opposed her). He formed alliances with Republicans on a handful of noncontroversial issues, including wasteful government spending in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
That is some record.
But, the Times says in the next paragraph: "Hey! Nothing to see here!"
But his potential candidacy is as much about who he is as about his legislative record.
You see, it is all about who Bananarama is. His lack of a record, or the fact that he is wholly not ready to be a US Senator, much less President, is not relevant.
Move on, says the dumbkopfs at The Times. If we want Osama Barama as the next President, we will get him, his record be damned.
