That seems to be the question of the season.
Many on the left (and right for that matter) use George W. Bush’s problems with vernacular as a measure of his intelligence and attempt to equate his problematic use of language (rhetoric) to his ability or qualification to lead. This is a false assumption. Many can speak eloquently but don’t have the practical ability to lead a lemming to the sea.
This truth brings up the question of Barack Obama’s qualifications to become leader of the free world and Commander-in-Chief of THE most powerful military force known to man. Is is qualified to lead?
He has never served in the military, never run any size private enterprise, never served on a board of a corporation, held office as a mayor of any city or governor of any state. His time as a state Senator in Illinois seems to be lackluster as he voted “Present” more times than taking a definitive position on any issue - save the recently revealed opposition to providing newborn babies who survive partial birth abortion procedures medical care under the guise that it somehow would lead to the eroding of Roe v. Wade. The only reason he took any kind of defining position on that issue is due to his love affair with infanticide. He loves to kill babies as evident by his A+ rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood - the nation’s largest abortion provider.
He has shown that he can make weak-minded drones faint on stage and captivate audiences with his vague calls for ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’, but does that mean that he’s qualified to lead? I don’t think so. Jessica Simpson is capable of filling an arena with thousands of adoring fans but I don’t believe anyone in this nation would elect her dog catcher.
The point is my friends that we begin to journey down a dangerous path once we elect individuals based on a cult of personality which is all that Obama is. The most prominent leader of any nation elected in this manner was Adolf Hitler when he was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1932. The world can ill afford to elect anyone leader of any prominent nation based on his ability to speak and extract radical emotions from crowds of people. Especially when his positions on how to lead are clouded in a fog of vague rhetoric about ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’. Hitler dared Germans to ‘Hope’ for a ‘Change’ back in 1932 and it lead to nearly 11 million deaths. Can you base your vote on vague rhetoric? I can’t.
Sphere: Related Content![[del.icio.us]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Reddit]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Sphere]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Email]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 08/12/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Doesn’t anybody remember the last time an inexperienced candidate was vetted by the mainstream media? Why, John F’in Kennedy, of course!
Kennedy was not as much an empty suit as the obamessiah, and did serve his country in the military, but his foreign policy was disastrous, almost resulting in the stationing of nukes in Cuba and possibly the start of WWIII.