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

Media Credibility Suffers Trying to Persuade Birthers

A recent article unveils the results of a “new CNN investigation” into the birther claims against Obama. But CNN, just like the rest of the media, doesn’t seem to understand that they no longer have the credibility to persuade.

The crux of the story deals with how ridiculous the birthers are for insisting that more persuasive evidence should be provided that Obama is indeed a U.S. citizen. But in attempting to make the birther movement look stupid, CNN ultimately falls flat on its collective face.

Why?

Well, because it’s intrinsically absurd. Those who believe in the theory that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. (obviously) don’t trust the media—not one whit! Then a representative of that very media comes along and writes a story that tries to call adherents of the movement into question and make them look fringe and goofy?

Now. for my part I don’t see the writer (or those who did the “research”) really addressing the issue as the so-called “birthers” see it. What are their positions on the issue? [Continue reading…]

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…]