Thoughts on the Electability of Non-Politicians: Character Trumps Experience

David Frum, former special assistant to George W. Bush, has decided that Herman Cain can’t be president. And he tells us why in this CNN opinion piece.

Penguin LogicBut I beg to differ…

Oh, he does make some compelling arguments — at least for some people.

But Frum counts on the fact that We the People just won’t take the time, nor do we have the sophistication, to figure out what’s really being communicated. He thinks he can hide it (as do others, including the media) through the foggy logic of modern political argumentation that he employs.

Here’s the gist.

The crux of Frum’s argument is this: Cain hasn’t been in politics, so Cain can’t effectively run government.

Really…? [Continue reading]

Advertisements

A Day To Remember

I’m just curious… Who knows what it is about today’s date, September 17th, that makes it special?

Well, we certainly know it doesn’t have anything to do with September 11th. Even though our date follows just a few days after that ignominious incident, nothing of historical significance could have taken place so quickly in response.

If I mention that it’s a date of political significance, does that help any?

Well, it’s too early before the elections to be included in any type of “October surprises.” And while I’m sure there are plenty of historical things that could have happened on this day, it’s not like there was a Pearl Harbor or Bay of Pigs, or even a Battle of the Bulge, in terms of possible big military anniversaries.

Were there any big catastrophes recorded for the date? In point of fact, the event represents much more in the way of hope than in terms of destruction. One participant at the event in question even likened the moment to a “rising sun” of hope—certainly an encouraging and apt description.

Give up yet? [Read the answer]

Duplicity in Liberal Interpretations of the Importance of the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America

I find it interesting that, after the bombardment of Libya, Dennis Kucinich and others (Democrats and Republicans) are now parading it around as though it were a sacred cow.

Kucinich says that what Obama did (by not consulting Congress) was an impeachable offense—it doesn’t agree with the Constitution. And so it was. Congress, not the President, is given all authority to declare war (or attack others in this case) according to Article I Section 8 of the document.

Kucinich then said something that I find wholly obtuse. In essence, he stated that just because it’s an impeachable offense, that doesn’t mean we have to impeach the President.

Huh?! If the highest office of the land acts in a manner contrary to the Constitution which gives that office its powers, then mustn’t impeachment follow as a matter of course? How can an “impeachable offense” remain unchallenged, according to the laws set forth in the instrument which established the government in the first place?

Why is it that the Constitution is suddenly so important when liberals need it to be? Kucinich and many other Dems are crying “Foul!” that the Constitution wasn’t followed, yet they have shown extraordinary disdain for the document when it’s at odds with what they seek to do. The entire bailouts, running up huge deficits, dictating health care to the people and the several states—these are all un-, non-, or extra-constitutional in their own right. [Continue reading…]