A few days ago, I offered up Sean Hannity's challenge to all of my readers to name three of Obama's accomplishments. I'm sure it will surprise you to hear that I have not yet had a single person even attempt to name one.
So, I offer it again: what has Obama done in the Senate that would prepare him to be President? Heck, I'll even open it up even more: what has he done through his years in public office, or as a community organizer? Name three accomplishments.
About the only thing I've heard lately is that Obama is running a campaign with thousands of volunteers and a large budget. Uh...that's just stupid. He has a campaign CEO to run the daily operations, he has speechwriters to do his speeches, and he has literally hundreds of advisers to guide him on policy questions. Where exactly does his leadership come in...?
Now, Sarah Palin is being slammed with the same experience questions, so how does she stack up? It's perfectly fair to ask the same question of her.
Newt Gingrich obliterated a snide reporter's question on this very subject just a few days ago:
Watch all the way to the end. Gingrich drops a colossal boom-stick on this reporter, and clearly the reporter is caught flat-footed!
The Obamessiah likes to belittle Palin's experience as the Mayor of a small town of 9,000 people, but they seem to forget what she's been doing for the last two years as Governor of Alaska:
Mr. McCain joined other Republicans in assailing news outlets when he told ABC News in an interview on Wednesday that “Sarah Palin has 24,000 employees in the state government” and was “responsible for 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply.” He added that he was entertained by the comparison of her experience to that of Mr. Obama and that “I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America.”Let's look at some specific issues and actions (i.e. accomplishments):
Health Care
Very soon after taking office, Governor Palin issued Administrative Order 232 (February 15, 2007), establishing the Alaska Health Care Strategies Planning Council and giving it a broad mandate to create an action plan. By the end of 2007, the Council had reported back with an extensive set of proposals; Governor Palin had obviously selected commissioners who weren't afraid of detail. The first area the commission focused on -- even coming up with some proposals that are economically rational -- was lowering costs… Following the release of the report, Governor Palin introduced legislation to begin implementing of the recommendations. To facilitate an increase in community-based health services, she has proposed repealing Alaka's certificate-of-need (CON) program, which prohibits new health care facilities from being constructed unless the government determines that there is a "need" for a new facility in a given area. To make costs and prices more transparent, Governor Palin has proposed requiring that all health care facilities in Alaska make accurate and updated lists of the costs of their procedures available to the public. The Governor explains her initial legislation here, in an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News.
Governor Palin reshuffled the governing board of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute, "the only public inpatient psychiatric hospital" in Alaska, through Administrative Order 241 (July 1, 2008). What's interesting about this reshuffle is who the Governor added to the board…Six members representing the general public; members appointed under this paragraph must be or have been consumers of behavioral health services and have been diagnosed with one of the mental disorders [defined elsewhere in law].…or, as the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services described it…The Alaska Psychiatric Institute is forming a new advisory board with a unique feature: at least seven seats will be held by people who have used the state’s mental health services.The new board will focus on patient rights and responsibilities, as well as continuing the transformation of the hospital to a recovery-based organization. “To accomplish this, we need — at the table — the very people we serve,” API Chief Executive Officer Ron Adler said.
Environment
In response to the discovery of unexpected corrosion in Alaska's oil-pipeline system, Governor Palin issued Administrative Order 234 (April 18, 2007), creating a Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to monitor and coordinate the maintenance of Alaska's oil infrastructure. The office was up and running quickly enough so that by July 6 of 2007, the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office Coordinator was the go-to person when the U.S House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce wanted detailed answers to questions on dangers to pipelines
The Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet was created by Governor Palin through Administrative Order 238 (September 14, 2007). Among the areas where the sub-cabinet is to develop recommendations on are…On January 5, 2008, the New York Times published an op-ed by Palin, presenting her view that the polar bear should not be placed on the endangered species list.[66] In May 2008, Palin objected to the decision of Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican United States Secretary of the Interior, to list polar bears federally as an endangered species, saying this move was premature and was not the appropriate management tool for their welfare; the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit to stop the listing amid fears that it would hurt oil and gas development in the bears' habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts.[67]
- The assembly of scientific research, modeling, and mapping information in ways that will help the public and policymakers understand the actual and projected effects of climate change in Alaska, including the time frames in which those effects are likely to take place.
- The prioritization of climate change research in Alaska to best meet the needs of the public and policymakers.
- The policies and measures to reduce the likelihood or magnitude of damage to infrastructure in Alaska from the effects of climate change.
- The potential benefits of Alaska participating in regional, national, and international climate policy agreements and greenhouse gas registries.
- The opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Alaska sources, including the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use management, and transportation planning.
Palin also opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, where oil and gas development has been proposed. [68]
Housing
In the area of housing policy, Governor Palin issued Administrative Order 236 (May 1, 2007), continuing the work of a commission created in 2004 by former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski. The major recommendation from Murkowski's commission had been the creation of a housing trust fund to assist people in need, but he never implemented it. Palin proposed $10 million dollars in her 2009 budget, to be overseen by a new body created through the administrative order, to be used to jump-start the trust fund. Her actions won plaudits from Alaska's housing advocates.
Energy
Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), where such development has been the subject of a national debate.[48] She also helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits. Palin has followed through on plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisers to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska.[49][50]
In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.[54] This negated a deal by the previous governor to grant the contract to a coalition including BP (her husband's former employer). Only one legislator, Representative Ralph Samuels,[55] voted against the measure,[56] and in June, Palin signed it into law.[57] On January 5, 2008, Palin announced that a Canadian company, TransCanada Corporation, was the sole AGIA-compliant applicant.[58][59] In August 2008, Palin signed a bill into law giving the state of Alaska authority to award TransCanada Pipelines $500 million in seed money and a license to build and operate the $26-billion pipeline to transport natural gas from the North Slope to the Lower 48 through Canada.[60]In response to high oil and gas prices, and the resulting state government budget surplus, Palin proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month energy debit cards. She also proposed providing grants to electrical utilities so that they would reduce customers' rates.[61] She subsequently dropped the debit card proposal, and in its place she proposed to send each Alaskan $1,200 from the windfall surplus resulting from high oil prices.[62]
Economy
Shortly after becoming governor, Palin canceled a contract for the construction of an 11-mile (18 km) gravel road outside Juneau to a mine. This reversed a decision made in the closing days of the Murkowski administration.[69] She also followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased (on a state government credit account, against the wishes of the Legislature) by the Murkowski administration for $2.7 million in 2005. In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay and later sold for $2.1 million.[70]
In June 2007, Palin signed into law a $6.6 billion operating budget—the largest in Alaska's history.[71] At the same time, she used her veto power to make the second-largest cuts of the construction budget in state history. The $237 million in cuts represented over 300 local projects, and reduced the construction budget to nearly $1.6 billion.[72]
In 2006, Ketchikan's Gravina Island Bridge, better known outside the state as the "Bridge to Nowhere", became an issue in the gubernatorial campaign. Palin initially expressed support for the bridge and ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform, arguing that it was essential for local prosperity.[77] After the bridge became a political issue Congress replaced the earmark for the bridge with an infrastructure grant to Alaska to use at its discretion; Palin's subsequent policy was to continue construction on the road originally intended to link to the bridge while exploring less-expensive transportation between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.[78][79][80] Palin made national news when she stopped work on the bridge. Reuters said the move was responsible for "earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer."
Now, let's recap Barack the Obamessiah's accomplishments:
1. ...?...
And this is a comparison between the Dem #1 and the Rep #2...
Rasmussen Reports just released the following poll numbers:
- Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.
- Thirty-nine percent (39%) also believe the GOP vice presidential nominee has better experience to be president of the United States than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
- But 49% give Obama the edge on experience, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey – taken before Palin’s historic speech Wednesday night to the Republican National Convention.
What is so significant about these numbers is the context. How long has Sarah Palin been on the national scene? About a week. How long has the Obamessiah been on the national scene? Almost two years, with full-force adoring coverage from the MSM. For Obama to have only a 10-point lead in the experience category on someone who is a newcomer to the stage is a disaster for the Obamessiah campaign! Add to that the fact that this poll was taken before her speech, and the disaster becomes an unmitigated disaster.
There's my two cents.
Sources:
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/006280.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122031229774188795.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
2 comments:
I thought about taking the bait on this challenge when you posted it awhile ago, but decided not to. I think anyone who defends any candidate must be honest about their candidate (the good, the bad, and the ugly), even in their defense of that candidate.
The reason I decided not to take the bait was because I probably would have been forced into a somewhat specious (if not semi-honest) discussion of the impact of his accomplishments in the senate. I could've listed the things everyone else has talked about. His work with Tom Coburn to create the open funding record and website (a good thing, but probably not a huge 'accomplishment). His work with Dick Lugar on nonproliferation issues (very important, but probably not a huge 'accomplishment'), etc. But (and I think any sincere Obama supporter would have to admit this), in reality, he just doesn't have a long list of legislative accomplishments. There it is.
Still, for some reason, I think Obama can be a great president. Why? I'm not totally sure. I don't think the run for president has to be a comparison between the candidate's legislative "rap sheets" where the longer sheet wins (after all, McCain's most notable "accomplishment" is McCain-Feingold--something I know a lot of people really hate).
But still, for some reason, I can't shake the sense that Obama can be a great president. I haven't felt that way about a candidate in the last three elections. Not Bush or Gore in 2000 (although I think we got glimpses of greatness in Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11--potential greatness that I think led to hubris and was ultimately squandered). Not Bush or Kerry in 2004. And not John McCain in 2008 (although I did like McCain a lot more about 5 months ago).
But for some reason I have that feeling about Obama. Accomplishments? Not many big ones. Experience? He's been a legislator on the national/state levels, he's a great orator, and he's run a great campaign for president...that's about it. Issues? I agree with him on a lot, but I disagree with him on quite a few too. Still, I'm pretty sure he's going to get my vote (which, in Kansas, is about as valuable to his election chances as if I sent him a love letter instead).
Why is he going to get my vote?
I think he's got the temperament to be a good president. I think he will think deeply and seriously about the important decisions he will have to make.
I think he will listen to opposing views and seriously consider them, but I think he will not be afraid to stand up for his own ideas when he has too. I also think he will not be unwilling to compromise or change his mind if he has to or if he has been persuaded.
I feel like he's sincere in his attempt and ability to find commond ground with people with whom he vigorously disagrees. Take abortion, for example. I disagree strongly with his stance on the legal aspects of abortion. But, I like his position, that (paraphrased) "hey, we can all find ways to reduce the actual number of abortions, regardless of how we feel about Roe v. Wade."
I think he will go a loooong way toward restoring the prestige and dignity of the White House and the country on an international stage. And, I think that's a good thing--even with the Europeans and the UN--because our ability to persuade and rally friendly and semi-friendly countries is a huge part of our ability to lead the world. I do not believe any country can go it alone in our world, and I don't believe enough has been done to demonstrate we aren't going it alone.
I think he will be a strong commander-in-chief, but will not rush into military action. And, frankly, I think his plans to move toward reducing our nuclear arsenal are good. The Cold War is over (despite McCain's speech last night), and having the ability to destroy the world dozens of times over is no longer necessary and is fraught with danger.
There are other things I could think of, but they're all in the same "X-factor" (i.e. reasons that are not really easy to describe) mold. They're not really concrete "accomplishments." And I'm ok with that.
Am I being naive? I don't think so. When it comes to politics, I feel like one of the "harder sales" for any party or candidate. I just think something needs to be different. Is he a risky pick? Yeah. Could I be wrong? Possibly. But I could be right. And, I think the ceiling for Obama's presidency is much higher, and thus much greater, than the risks.
Michael - as always, I can tell you've put some thought into this.
While I strenuously disagree with how Obama might hold up in the White House, we ultimately come down to a simple difference of opinion. Thus, I will simply say thanks for sharing your thoughts - I really appreciate it!
I guess I'll just have to be a bit more persuasive between now and November, won't I? ;)
Post a Comment