For example, what is Obama's position on education? It is to increase the compensation of members of the teachers' union, the National Education Association (NEA). As former education secretary Bill Bennett has pointed out the main Democrats have an education "policy" that would provide no benefits to students or their parents.
Sixteen years ago, the new President, Bill Clinton, named former SC governor Riley -- a man with the energy and vision of a crushed centipede -- as Secretary of Education. When that happened, I shook my head. It meant that during the Clinton Administration nothing truly positive would happen in American education. There would be no incentives -- that is, no merit pay or promotion opportunities -- for outstanding educators. There would be no real effort to improve the performance of American students. However, the NEA bosses would be purring like kittens.
Does Obama offer anything better? Does Mrs. Clinton? Do either of them show any signs of wanting to bring education into the American economic system, one that rewards excellence and penalizes failure?
Let's be clear: great teachers should be paid more, perhaps much more. The problem is that the NEA and people like Obama, dedicated to mediocirty in education, are opposed to such incentives. As long as most of the mediocre teachers continue voting for the Democrats, then all is well.
With Obama, I have another major problem: his incomprehension of the War on Terror. In the first debate, many months ago, Obama was asked a hypothetical question: what would he do as President if he learned that two American cities had been struck by terrorist attacks? (The implication seemed to be that the attacks were devastating and perhaps involved WMDs.)
Obviously nervous, Obama said that he would immediately call for an "investigation" to determine why the American intelligence community had failed to deter the attacks. It was a sickening answer.
In other words, Obama as President would take no responsibility for the failure. Instead, he'd lauch an investigation designed to pin the blame on someone other than himself. In short, he'd conduct a witch-hunt.
Why is this man so clueless about what being a Real President involves? A big part of the problem is his need, during the primaries, to appeal to the most fanatical Democratic activists, the people who gave us MoveOn.org.
According to poll data, 20% of the Democrats in America -- Moveon-types -- admit they're rooting for the Iraq insurgents -- a collection of mass-murderers -- to win the war. These are the Democrats who vote -- and give money -- to the various candidates, and Obama, like Mrs. Clinton, is committed to encouraging their illusions.
If Obama ever becomes President, God save the United States of America.
Thoughts on John McCain: I believe he will win the Florida Primary -- probably by a good margin. The key after today is for him to get the endorsements of Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. If he can do that before Super Tuesday, it would mean he would win California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, among others. He may win them anyway, but the endorsements would help. In my own state of Pennsylvania (primary on April 22), McCain is far ahead. Huckabee is finished, but he seems to be one of the few people in America who's unaware of that significant fact. Ron Paul remains the most irritating man (after Dennis Kucinich) in American politics.
My Problems with the Democratic Candidates
As frequent visitors to this site know, I'm exasperated with SOME single-issue Republicans (or, just as bad, single-candidate Republicans). However, I'm convinced either of the Democratic candidates -- Obama or Clinton -- would be harmful to the country. Wanting to become President because it's a high-status position, and that describes the two Democratic contenders, is not enough.
The Democrats are NOT committed to taking the necessary steps to: safeguard the nation from terrorists, reduce taxes in order to strengthen the economy, install incentives (school choice, merit pay) to improve education, secure the nation's borders in an effective, humane way, or protect human life from conception until natural death.
Instead, Obama and Clinton are ready to make sure government plays a much bigger role in our lives. Yes, the believe in universalized health care, but somehow they don't believe in what's critical: reducing health care costs (so more people can afford insurance) and improving the quality of care (by increasing the number of CARING doctors and nurses and by providing information about where patients can find good doctors and hospitals).
One of the exasperating things about watching the Democrats is that they know, just as you and I do, how to help solve America's problems. Yet they fall back on the old liberal "solutions," which mainly involve greater government control and reduce individual liberty. This country can do a lot better than Obama or Clinton.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment