Obama is always telling us he doesn't need experience, because he has good judgment. Well, one would never know it by the people he associates with. Or brings aboard to vet vice-presidential candidates.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Judgment.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/9678
4 Comments
Karl Hallowell wrote:
Hmmm, I'm concerned more by the revelation that a head of Fannie Mae had special deals on the side with one of Fannie Mae's biggest customers. Another sign of the coming real estate apocalypse. There's no indication (at least at this time) that Obama knew of James Johnson's dealings before he recruited him. I don't know what process Obama used to vet his team, but someone like this could have slipped through even if Obama were doing due diligence.
OTOH, appointing a former head of Fannie Mae? That's a bad choice. My view is that the government support (in the form of credit lines and other backing) for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be completely withdrawn. Obama indicates that he's opposite me on this important issue.
Anonymous wrote:
"Obama is always telling us he doesn't need experience..."
Unless you can come up with a reference, I don't think he's ever said that. He's said that his experience compares favorably with Hillary's and McCain's. It may not, in reality, but you're suggesting he's admitted something that he hasn't.
If I said "George W. Bush is always telling us that he doesn't need to follow international law because..." you would correctly point out that GWB has never admitted to violating the law. He may have said that the UN or ICC are obsolete organizations, or that international law has no legitimacy, but he won't come right out and say, "Sure, I broke the Geneva conventions, and I don't care!". He'll say that the GC are irrelevant, but not admit that he broke them.
Rand Simberg wrote:
Unless you can come up with a reference, I don't think he's ever said that.
Yes, you caught me. I was paraphrasing. My point remains, despite your desperate attempt to defend The Messiah.
I dunno. Obama has to associate with people in the halls of power. And everyone in the halls of power is surrounded by people trying to get something. Some of those people are bound to be crooked. Didn't a famous bank robber say "That's where the money is" when asked why he robbed banks? Well, there is even more money in legislatures.
We don't elect hermits.
Couldn't this be a case of selection bias or sampling error? There are no statistical studies of the corruption of associates of Obama/Clinton/Edwards/McCain/Romney....
Can you imagine the problems with coding such a dataset?
I think the surge, Iran and other policy matters are better examples of Obama's bad judgement.
Yours,
Wince
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on June 10, 2008 5:39 AM.
Hmmm, I'm concerned more by the revelation that a head of Fannie Mae had special deals on the side with one of Fannie Mae's biggest customers. Another sign of the coming real estate apocalypse. There's no indication (at least at this time) that Obama knew of James Johnson's dealings before he recruited him. I don't know what process Obama used to vet his team, but someone like this could have slipped through even if Obama were doing due diligence.
OTOH, appointing a former head of Fannie Mae? That's a bad choice. My view is that the government support (in the form of credit lines and other backing) for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be completely withdrawn. Obama indicates that he's opposite me on this important issue.
"Obama is always telling us he doesn't need experience..."
Unless you can come up with a reference, I don't think he's ever said that. He's said that his experience compares favorably with Hillary's and McCain's. It may not, in reality, but you're suggesting he's admitted something that he hasn't.
If I said "George W. Bush is always telling us that he doesn't need to follow international law because..." you would correctly point out that GWB has never admitted to violating the law. He may have said that the UN or ICC are obsolete organizations, or that international law has no legitimacy, but he won't come right out and say, "Sure, I broke the Geneva conventions, and I don't care!". He'll say that the GC are irrelevant, but not admit that he broke them.
Unless you can come up with a reference, I don't think he's ever said that.
Yes, you caught me. I was paraphrasing. My point remains, despite your desperate attempt to defend The Messiah.
I dunno. Obama has to associate with people in the halls of power. And everyone in the halls of power is surrounded by people trying to get something. Some of those people are bound to be crooked. Didn't a famous bank robber say "That's where the money is" when asked why he robbed banks? Well, there is even more money in legislatures.
We don't elect hermits.
Couldn't this be a case of selection bias or sampling error? There are no statistical studies of the corruption of associates of Obama/Clinton/Edwards/McCain/Romney....
Can you imagine the problems with coding such a dataset?
I think the surge, Iran and other policy matters are better examples of Obama's bad judgement.
Yours,
Wince