Two articles in The Wall Street Journal's online version caught my eye this morning. The first is a column by Peggy Noonan. Her weekly column is something I look forward to reading, I admit. She usually writes exactly how I am thinking on most issues. Today's column was no different.
Today Ms. Noonan is looking for a 'Reasonable Person for President'. Her logic falls along the lines of my own quest, looking for some common sense in the political world. Common sense and reason are two favorable characteristics in a potential Leader of the Free World.
She speaks of the pros and cons of the candidates as they campaign for the quickly approaching primary dash to the nomination. She points out the common sense of the flip flop criticism of candidates, such as Mitt Romney. She says everyone is entitled to change his/her mind once. But, in a campaign, the last choice is the choice which you must maintain. For instance, Romney is under attack for being pro-life after being pro-choice. I would think the pro-lifers would be happy he came around to that opinion. He can't go back to a pro-choice position now.
She speaks of John McCain as "an experience, personally heroic, seasoned, blunt-eyed, irascible American character. He makes me proud. He makes everyone proud." Irascible. I like that description.
As for Obama, she notes he is running as the candidate of change, as is Hillary. Obama is not experienced enough for many voters, nor is he old enough. "Men in their 40's love drama too much. Young politicians on fire over this issue or that tend to see politics as a stage on which they can act out their greatness. And we don't need more theatrics, more comedies or tragedies. But Mr. Obama doesn't seem on fire. He seems like a calm liberal with a certain moderating ambivalence. The great plus of his candidacy: More than anyone else he turns the page. If he rises he is something new in history, good or bad, and a new era begins."
Hillary's problem continues to be one of trustworthiness. More than half of the voting population consistently claims to not trust the woman. She has never given us a reason to trust her, this opinion is of her own making. More than her control freakishness, more than her sense of entitlement to enrich herself at the expense of the American taxpayer because she simply deserves it, more than her tired old has-been socialist thoughts on policy, it is her problem with trustworthiness. "My central problem is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial--crucial--that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself."
Of Rudy, Noonan says he is reasonable but not desirable. And, she thinks we deserve better than Edwards, who will spend 2 full minutes on YouTube fluffing his hair in front of a mirror.
And the second column was by Kimberley Strassel analysing Obama as an agent of change. She comes to the same conclusion as I have on this claim. The reason the Dems can run on 'change' is because the atmosphere is so completely polarized between both parties. Obama, however, has done very little to ease the situation. He may claim to be all about change while he is running and figures the average American isn't going to look too carefully at his record as a U.S. Senator and he is probably right. Too bad, too. That makes for an ill-informed voter population. Obama has consistently voted to please the far left of the party and isn't one to come together with the other side for compromise. He wasn't one of the Gang of 14, for instance, who worked to break the barriers that arose over judicial nominations. McCain led that effort. Obama was nowhere to be found. Obama is consistent on voting against all of Bush's judicial nominations, as well as other nominees, as a matter of fact. How will he feel, if he is fortunate enough to become the President, when others use such petty, partisan tactics solely for personal political gain, not due to anything negative about the nominee? Solely for props from the Kos Kiddies and the HuffPo whiners who now brief the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House every morning when the House and Senate is in session? Who would have ever thought the blogosphere would be shaping foreign and domestic policy with such arrogance?
In March, the National Journal released its 2006 annual rankings of Congress. It is based on roll call votes. Obama was shown to be more liberal than 86% of others in Congress. The only issues he voted in a bi-partisan way was on issues like government transparency, which even the far left will agree on.
Obama has already caved to some of his reforms placed before caucus goers. He suggested teacher pay be in line with performance and has backtracked now for the special interests voices. Now he tells school union members that pay shouldn't be in line with test scores.
He hasn't come forward with his plans for health care, which is suppose to be the top issue for so many voters. He says he'll produce his plan in January. He "explained that a big reason he should be the Democratic nominee is that he could carry his party to a sweeping congressional victory that would provide a "mandate for change." "I mean, if we have a 50-plus-one election, we cannot get a serious health-care bill done. We can't have a serious agenda on climate change,"he said. "That doesn't sound like a man who wants to work wit Republicans toward a bipartisan era. It sounds like a man who wants to crush his opponents at the polls, and then bulldoze his agenda through an enfeebled opposition. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that; it's what politicians have been trying to do for decades. But it's certainly nothing new."