Obama, in yet another gaffe, fails to realize the irony and the future repercussions of his assessment of another government figure not possessing the experience or credentials to assume his or her post.
The arrogance is palpable.
If he applies his same viewpoint selfward, might he relinquish his presumed nomination?
Obama on Clarence Thomas (emphasis mine)
Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated…Obama took a lower road, replying first that “that’s a good one,” and then adding that “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas.
I don’t think that he, I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.” The Democrat added that he also wouldn’t have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.
So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his “elevation” to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
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.
Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.
So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won’t let slip what he really believes.
Anyone that has read of Justice Thomas’ upbringing and lifelong triumphs knows the ignorance that Obama let loose in his rancid commentary. Furthermore, Thomas, unlike many of his African American contemporaries has chosen not to self-victimize himself with his race, and that probably chaps Obama’s hide.
Clearly Barack Obama is hiding his true feelings on a host of issues, a glimpse of which has been revealed by his wife’s caustic commentary, subsequently squelched, and the rare occasion when Obama is caught unrehearsed or without his handlers.
Obama’s arrogance smacks of an adolescent who has just been given the keys to Daddy’s car for the first time.
His overconfidence is just the latest in a growing array of chinks in the armor of his candidacy. More on that later.
Such big babies we have.
“served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”
Neither of which involved practicing law or required a law degree. Which leaves 1 year on the bench, 3 years as an entry level lawyer at the MO AG, and (I will throw in) 3 years of private practice for Monsanto.
It is just a simple fact that of the current Justices, Thomas had the least judicial and legal experience when nominated. It is not even close. Take a look and tell me which Justice had less legal experience when nominated than Thomas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Rick swings for the fence … and Ks on the point!
Let me paraphrase your statement back and maybe you’ll get the point, but probably you won’t:
It is just a simple fact that of modern presidential candidates, Obama had the least executive and legislative experience when nominated. It is not even close.
Now do you get the point?
N-Bert,
Rick hasn’t been instructed to “get the point” by his DFL overseer yet.
Give the lad time.
Lad? I thought RickDFL was a chick.
So did his boyfriend!
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I’ve said it before: Obama’s is the persona of the perfect News Anchor. Think about it: the artfully humorless expression, the skill at reading prompters… No wonder that unscripted he hems & haws uncontrollably and utters dopey statements like the one addressed here. Also: right near the beginning of this Clarence Thomas answer he makes an amazingly transparent gaffe: he nearly decrys Thomas’ “inexperience,” then stops himself and uses another word– knowing full well that who is he to knock someone’s inexperience. It’s extremely revealing. Youtube probably has it.
Nerdbert:
“Obama had the least executive and legislative experience when nominated. It is not even close.”
Actually no. Of Presidents since 1900 Obama has equal or greater legislative experience than at least 5. If elected Obama will have 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and 4 years in the U.S. Senate. That compares with:
Bush II: 6 years Gov.
Reagan: 8 years Gov.
Cater: 4 Years State Senate 4 Years Gov.
FDR: 2 Years State Senate, 8 Years Assist. Sec. of Navy (discounted b/c not cabinet level), 4 Years Gov.
Harding, State Sen. 4 Years, Lt. Gov. 2 Years, U.S. Sen 6 Years.
Ike is hard to count. 10 years of high level military command and 4 years as President of Columbia, but he has never held elected office.
Make that 6, I totally forgot Wilson and his massive 2 years Gov. of New Jersey.
Make that 7, Hoover had 8 years as Secretary of Commerce.
Rick…I’m not going to correct any more of your spelling errors…just so you know.
While your list is duly noted, it both misses the point – Obama has NO executive experience – and is lacks context in that way that many of us are starting to call “Ricking Context”.
Executive experience counts – MUCH more than legislative. Bush and Reagan both governed big states; FDR discharged some serious executive responsibility as AsstSecNav; Ike’s executive experience is undeniable, whether it was elected or not. Carter was a joke as governor; Lester Maddox was right.
But wait – McCain’s only executive experience was being a squadron commander in the Navy, in charge of a couple of hundred guys! Well, yeah, which is more than Obama has, even leaving aside the lopsided quantity AND quality of their respective times in the Senate (Mac: big committees, big roles. Obama; isn’t he on the decorating and lunch committees? He’s a hamster).
Mitch: I grant you John McCain has more experience than Obama. That is why I am voting for Obama, I think McCain is an entrenched part of the Washington problem.
But that wasn’t the question(s) that came up. First, people seem to have conceded that Thomas had far less judicial and legal experiences than the other current Justices. Second, Obama’s experience is far more comparable to other Presidents than Thomas is to other current Justices.
Your list of qulifying experience is selective, RickDFL.
Harding & Carter were not very good presidents. FDR’s experience as assistant sec. of the navy should not be discounted — his tenure included WWI and he was deeply involved in foreign policy. He founded the naval reserve, fer God’s sake. He was teh vice presidential nominee in 1920.
Reagan and Bush II were governors of very large, populous and diverse states, Reagan was the standard bearer for the conservative wing of the GOP and had made a strong run against Ford for the ’76 nomination.
“Your list of qulifying experience is selective”
Technically, you and Mitch are the ones being selective. This counts, that doesn’t. I simply answered nerdbert’s question.
Technically, you and Mitch are the ones being selective.
Nothing technical about it; I count executive experience more valuable than legislative experience when running for president.
Yes, I am selective. With good reason.
If you’re going to be that technical, RickDFL, then FDR’s experience as asst secretary to the navy should count as executive experience.
On that scale Obama is not the least qualified presidential candidate, but he certainly ranks among them.
RickDFL said:
“I simply answered nerdbert’s question.”
nerbert said:
“Now do you get the point?”
RickDFL should have just said “No”.
Terry:
I should have been clearer. FDR term as Assis. Sec of Navy certainly counts as executive experience, I just thought we should knock off about 2 years credit because it was not Cabinet rank.
I would disagree about “qualified”. Executive and Legislative experience is a fairly neutral term and we can agree that candidate A has more or less experience, but still disagree about whether the are “qualified for the job”.
“that is why I am voting for Obama, I think McCain is an entrenched part of the Washington problem.”
Please. If Obama was the one with decades in the Senate and McCain is the one with 140 days as Senator before running for President you would still vote for Obama. No reason to deny it.
“Executive and Legislative experience is a fairly neutral term and we can agree that candidate A has more or less experience, but still disagree about whether the are “qualified for the job”. ”
No we can’t. 8 years part time in the state legislator does not equal 1 year as governor. No slap at any state legislator, but just widely different jobs. Only comparison is they both were elected. There is no executive experience gained.
What about Reagan’s experience with the actors’ union in Hollywood? That’s more experience alone than Obak Barama.