Ret. Gen. Clark: McCain lacks command experience

Sun Jun 29, 10:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON – Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate now supporting Barack Obama, said Sunday John McCain’s military service does not automatically qualify him to be commander in chief.

Underscoring during a national television appearance a position he has been expressing for several weeks, Clark said performing heroic military service is not a substitute for gaining command experience.

So, Mr. Clark, does your candidate have “command experience”?

An advisor, Daniel Kurtzer, to Barack Obama says that Obama didn’t realize what he was saying to AIPAC when he used the term ”undivided” in reference to Jerusalem.

Holy crap, that’s just bad.

But then, what do I know? I’m just an Typical White Person.

First, he briefly explains how the Republicans have fucked up in the past few years, bringing us to the brink of electing the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. Then he articulates many of the fears many of us have of an Obama presidency. These are many of the same themes I’ve touched on here. The professional vs. non-professional comparison is left as an exercise for the reader.

Hanson also touches on the racial double-think going on among Obama supporters:

So now we are in this Orwellian paradox of seeing Obama’s base turn out in record numbers on the basis apparently of race, but on the other hand the implied warning that if anyone else were likewise to consider that fact, then he would be racialist.

Finally, he touches on the McCain “affair” non-story.

Good reading.

• Cut and run: Let me be very clear right here: We are winning in Iraq. Despite this, the Democrats continue to insist on “bringing the troops as soon as possible”. Does “as soon as possible” mean when the job is done or now? My money is on the latter, and it will be an unmitigated disaster. Cutting and running in the face of Islamist violence would indeed be a change from the current administration, but not a good one.
• Higher taxes: High taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains discourages savings and investment. The Bush “tax cuts for the wealthy” recognized this by cutting these taxes. Isn’t the building of wealth a good thing? I suppose not, since the Democrats will be looking to raise these taxes again.
• Wealth redistribution: Along with higher taxes will be even more social programs to “help the poor”. What this really amounts to is taking money from people who work hard (higher income taxes) and save diligently (higher investment taxes), and giving it to people who neither work nor save (welfare). This has the effect of encouraging people to not work. What kind of change will happen when enough people stop working because they can collect a check from the government? The societal-collapsing kind, that’s what.
• Department of Medical Visitations: If you think your insurance company’s bureaucracy is bad, just wait until you get the government involved! Do you really want to consult the Department of Medical Visitations when you need surgery? Do you really want to stifle life-saving innovations through draconian price controls? Obviously there needs to be some changes in medicine, but there’s the Good kind of change and the Bad kind of change. Socialized medicine is the Bad kind.
• Further energy dependence: Conservation is good, but as long as we continue refusing to develop our domestic energy resources, we will continue to be dependent on others for our energy needs. I suppose this isn’t really a change, but simply a continuation of current foolishness.
• Enabling criminals: Democrats don’t explicitly set out to increase crime, but that is the practical effect of changes they like to implement, like more gun control.

That’s just what I’ve come up with off the top of my head. Maybe change isn’t such a good thing after all.

Conventional wisdom is hardening around the proposition that Fred Dalton Thompson is too lazy, ill-prepared, tired, old, lackluster, inexperienced, inconsistent and bald to make a successful run for President.

Of course, conventional wisdom rarely gets anything right. When it does, it’s only by accident.

In this case conventional wisdom is not just wrong but comically so. Thompson will win the Republican nomination for two reasons. First, he’s a very impressive candidate. Second, there’s no realistic alternative. He will win the general election for the same two reasons.

The author then goes on to compare Thompson to his Republican and Democratic rivals. He also asserts that Thompson is the best candidate to return the Republican Party to the ideals preached by Reagan. I don’t agree with the entire article (particularly “[Roe v Wade] is a travesty, which puts [Guliani] squarely on the wrong side of the culture war”), but it’s an interesting take on an interesting candidate. Go read.

Update, Feb 2008: Maybe conventional wisdom was right after all. Bummer.