While criticizing Senator Obama's qualifications to be President, I have often mentioned different people who are qualified in the traditional sense.
While Obama is qualified for 2 reasons:
1. voters (like me) are willing to vote for him, so that ends the question
2. Bush and Bill Clinton have so lowered the standard that now basically anyone who the elites agree on is acceptable.
Clinton was found to have low ethical standards in many ways and was impeached (wrongly) for misbehavior (one half of the country thinks no one could be worse).
Bush has been found to have low professional standards, bad judgement in many ways, and overall doing such a bad job, that now the other half of the country thinks no one could be worse.
Yet, Charlie Rangel is an African American qualified in the traditional sense (except his age):
+ Korean War hero
+self-made person who worked his way up
+expererience in Congress with actual achievements like co-creation of the Congressional Black Caucus; being top democrat and now Chair of the Ways and Means.
He is pragmatic, Patriotriotic and a good person.
To my knowledge he has been married to 1 person for many years.
He is a good role-model for many people.
He has a history of good relations with Republicans while being a solid Liberal on policy.
He's under seige by the nytimes and washpost for alleged ethics shortcoming. I support Rangel against these ethics issues 100%:
http://wcbstv.com/national/Charles.B.Ran gel.2.772873.html
I detest this "good government" attitude that tries to imply corruption in government. I don't have a problem with people doing common sense things in the course of business.
We should reject people like William Jefferson who are apparently crooked and criminal minded.
We should stop trying to find "conflicts of interests" and the like with good Congress-people who divulge everything and are straight shooters.
I just wanted to put some meat on the bones of my contention from the Primary that people could be against Obama because he wasn't qualified and not be racist or making up reasons to vote against him.
If Rangel was 15 years younger with his current resume, he'd be a great Dem. candidate for President and no one could argue he was an affirmative action choice.
While I'm voting Obama because he's the dem nominee, I won't forget what a horrible campaign that he ran in the Primary's by playing the race card. I plan on holding he and his campaign accountable until they repudiate it.
It should be easy, because he/they would be doing it as winners.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
