Tuesday, August 19, 2008


Turns out the WSJ has claws:

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet
four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of
his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a
"community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial
credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure.
And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural
Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.


john in il said...

I heard Biden is in the running for VP. Would that change your mind?

Kevin said...

Sometimes I think Jamie and I are the only two sane people left in this election year. :-)

Jamie said...

The Biden factor may indeed change my mind. Despite his personal foibles, I have great admiration for Biden.

inrepair said...

Experience or not, I'd still prefer Obama over McCain.

Jamie said...

Neither one inspires me whatsoever. They both actually frighten me for different reasons. Slippery, indecisive, and purposefully vague politicians tend to do that.

The only real difference I can see is what type of SC Justice each would appoint, and my potential marriage is at stake. With all other things being equal--which they seem to be--that tips it in the Democrat's favor. Knowing Biden is there to pick up the pieces literally would let me wipe my brow in relief.

North Dallas Thirty said...

That is your right, Jamie; however, there are quite a few of us who think marriage belongs to the electorate and emphatically reject more Supreme Court justices who blatantly disregard the Constitution.

Jamie said...

As we've said before, NDT, we'll have to agree to disagree about that. While you are welcome to your viewpoint, mine differs vastly.

My view is twofold: One--that marriage is a religious function that government has usurped, and, should my church decide to marry Norman and I, then no man should have a say in such matters other than my pastor; and Two--since marriage has been usurped and made a civil function, then the sexist argument that it's "One Man, One Woman" blatently disregards the supposition that we are all created equal. But we've had this debate before, so please let's not turn this particular thread into that discussion, OK? Thanks.

Tommy said...

The funny thing about all that, Jamie, is Justice Thomas is one of the most blatent disregarders of the Constitution Justice there is. http://abajournal.com/news/study_labels_thomas_most_partisan_justice_scalia_most_activist/

Tommy said...



John said...

When folks complain that McCain, Obama, and the rest of them are "liars" and "flip-floppers," I remind them that the liars and flip-floppers always win.

The voters keep on insisting that they don't want unprincipled, wishy-washy drones in public office. Yet, that's the species they (re)elect every two years.

Incumbents are returned to Congress at around a 95% rate in this country. Even in the so-called "thumpin" of 2006, all the Democratic incumbents won. And the Republicans only lost 30 House seats (which translates into a net change of only 6.8% in the chamber's overall membership). If that constitutes sweeping "change," then there's something very wrong with our definition of change.

Patrick said...

Obama had the audacity to claim that he wouldn't have nominated Thomas because he was unqualified. What a little punk.