Senator Biden has recently warned that Senator Obama, and exclusively Obama, will be challenged by international events due to his inexperience if he is elected to the Presidency. He continued to state that the response, to at least 1 of 4 or 5 different scenarios would at least look wrong, and that supporters would need to stand by and wait while the events play themselves out. And Biden finished the thought with a comparison of Senator Obama to President John Kennedy.

Since that time, the Obama campaign has wasted no time in backing away from the comments, while the major media has done it’s best to ignore the statements altogether. It is now stated that Biden was speaking of any President, which is a direct lie as he named Obama and only Obama – going so far as to be very clear that it was an Obama only issue when he made the original comment.

But putting aside the willful rewriting of fact, I want to focus on the comparison to President Kennedy. This is a popular comparison for Senator Obama. Both men were young and relatively inexperienced so in some ways the comparison fits, but the question is how much.

President Kennedy was rich. Very rich. Senator Obama was not.

President Kennedy was a family man, as is Obama.

President Kennedy was an adulterer, Obama is not.

President Kennedy came from a politically elected and connected family, Obama did not.

Before becoming President, and before WWII, Kennedy lived as a young adult in Europe and had a degree in international affairs. He also wrote a thesis on the appeasement, “Appeasement in Munich”. In addition his father was ambassador to England. Thus he had some degree of international experience and understanding, none of which Obama has.

President Kennedy volunteered for military service, and was accepted due to the influence of his father (before America was attacked at Pearl Harbor). He served a total of 4 years. Senator Obama has never served a day in any branch of service, and has in fact blamed U.S. servicemen for various acts that are inaccurate at best. (He has claimed U.S. forces have bombed villages and civilians)

President Kennedy was decorated with Navy and Marine Corps Medal, Purple Heart, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and World War II Victory Medal. Again Obama has never served.

President Kennedy served in the House of Representatives for 6 years, and was a Senator for 7 years. In that time he broke several times with President Truman and the Democratic Party. Senator Obama has served 4 years as Senator – 2 of which have been during his time campaigning for President. He has never voted against the Democratic Party line, and is the most liberal member of the Senate.

President Kennedy had to fight against the belief that his religion, Roman Catholic, would affect his ability to lead the nation. Senator Obama has had to fight against the lies of his being a Muslim. In addition he has had to contend with racial prejudice.

President Kennedy failed in one of his first major international confrontations when he ruined the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. His inexperience led to the failure of support, naval and air, for the men that were attempting to overthrow Fidel Castro. The invasion attempt was planned before Kennedy was President and there was no action by Cuba to justify the revolt – beyond their support of Communism. Senator Obama has no international experience, and had his perhaps first major mistake in looking to have the U.N. punish Russia for the invasion of Georgia. (Russia is a member of the security counsel in the U.N. and thus could veto any action against it)

In 1962 Kennedy faced down the Soviet Union, which was emboldened by the Bay of Pigs result, as they tried to ship nuclear weapons into Cuba. It has been stated that America was within hours of a nuclear war before the Soviet Union backed down. Senator Obama has indicated that it prefers to speak with nations that are seeking nuclear weapons development, and hold a declared desire to see America destroyed – no matter what person is President. He has also threatened to attack the sovereign soil of an ally nation (given that Pakistan is volatile at best).

President Kennedy increased U.S. troops in Viet Nam from 800 to 16,000 in support of France (who was getting their butts kicked by the communist forces) to defend America against communism. Senator Obama intends to reduce the troops in Iraq from roughly 130,000 today to an unannounced number (though in his polispeak it is assumed to be 0) within 18 months of his being elected. Many dispute the effect of this, and I believe it to be a guaranteed manner in which to create greater instability in the region, empower Iran, and will lead to attacks on American soil within 5 years of the removal of troops.

President Kennedy also did vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which many at the time opposed. But he also voted for the Jury Trial Amendment, which in effect nullified the Act, thus engendering the support of segregationist Senators James Eastland and John McClellan and Mississippi Governor James P. Coleman. There is no directly comparable law that Senator Obama voted for or against. But he has voted against funding troops in Iraq, an act that his own Vice Presidential candidate opposed very publicly, which was publicly a mixed decision.

So in looking at both men what do we get?

President Kennedy was a man who was familiar with events in the world and was active in them. He was dedicated to the nation and willing to put his life on the line to protect it – going as far as using political pressure to ensure his enlistment. He was willing to work against his Party on issues he felt were important, though he was also willing to compromise those issues for political favor. He made bad decisions early in his Presidency that caused near nuclear war at a time when few had such means but great fear. He was willing to use U.S. troops to enforce the views of America, even when there was no direct provocation or danger to America – though he foresaw future danger.

Senator Obama is unfamiliar with involvement with world events. He has preferred to make decisions based on political advisement instead of active investigation (he has visited Iraq and Afghanistan twice, the second time for both after he gained the nomination of the Democratic Party). He has framed himself as a far-left liberal and as such is against the military. He is a Party line supporter and has no real bi-partisan interests. He is interested in discussion as opposed to action, to an extreme. Enemies of America believe he is weak as well as inexperienced (much like Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs). He has served virtually no time in nationally elected office.

Overall there is in fact little connection or positive comparison of Senator Obama to President Kennedy. It might be summed up that both men were Senators (though for far different amounts of time, and Kennedy serving in both Houses), both had religious misunderstandings they had to overcome, both are Democrats. In addition both men can claim intelligence, families, wealth, and a dedication to America. Both men are charismatic and excellent orators.

Beyond that, there really is no comparison. Both men are very different and it would be fair to say that President Kennedy would likely oppose most of the campaign promises of Senator Obama. In fact it would be fair to say that President Kennedy would support Senator McCain and his policies – even if that meant breaking Party lines which he was wont to do.

So when we return to the promises of Senator Biden, keeping in mind the real comparison of President Kennedy and Senator Obama, it becomes clear that Obama is not the person that should be elected.

The media may not like to make that fact based comparison, the Democrats might prefer the romanticized pairing of the men, but when you really look at the truth and not the polispeak there is an obvious difference.

Labels: Polispeak, President John F. Kennedy, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden

So in the 4th day of the start of the unofficial race between Senator McCain and Senator Obama the barbs are continuing to hit their marks. Of course the start of the race lies with President Bush.

It must be said that President Bush was wrong as he spoke overseas. A U.S. President should NEVER discuss the internal political matters in a foreign state. It weakens any potential President in terms of foreign policy and is little different than when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to affect policy when she visited the Middle East.

Going beyond that, I do have to wonder about what Senator McCain first stated

‘What does Senator Obama expect to gain…’

Seriously, what does he expect? If an American President speaks to any nation that promotes terror, they elevate that nation. Without a clear ability to gain something of equal importance, direct talks hurt America.

I gave a friend this example,

“No one is concerned about the threat of Papua New Guinea today. But if the President of the free world went there and spoke to their leader about their military and goals, it would instantly be news. New Guinea would instantly have more political power than other nations in their region and be more involved with every world power. Now imagine if you just change the country to Iran.

Imagine Iran saying that America was so afraid they had to talk, tail between their legs, to the powerful Iran. And so on.”

The fact is that Senator Obama is wrong on this. He is wrong to make the comparison about President Kennedy. While it is true that there were talks to remove all future nuclear weapons from Cuba, and to discuss the cold war, it wasn’t because President Kennedy was a talkative guy. President Kennedy threatened and near took America to war, over the missiles and Cuba. It was the Cuban Missile Crisis that created the talks. So it was the threat of force, and only that imminent threat that got talks going.

When you compare President Kennedy’s motivation to talk to the USSR to the plans of today’s Presidential candidates, he doesn’t match up to Senator Obama. Maybe those to young to recall the incident will not realize this, maybe those older have romanticized the event, but President Kennedy did not just start talking, and the threat of the post-nuclear USSR was far more tangible than Iran at this moment.

So think about it. How does elevating Iran, a nation that denies the Holocaust and desires the death of Israel and advocate the overthrow of the American political system, make America safer? What argument could Senator Obama provide that would suddenly convince Amenajad (President of Iran) top change his mind or tactics? Especially since he claims these beliefs are part of how he views his faith?

I’m sorry for Senator Obama’s fans, but such a plan or even the idea is idealistic and based in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with the here and now. It may sound nice, and is preferable to the current status or violence, but it’s about as attainable as buying a gallon of Ethanol in New York City or a snowstorm at the equator.

I’ll compare Senator Obama and Senator McCain in depth shortly.

Labels: Cuban Missile Crisisis, foreign policy, Iran, Israel, Middle East, President Bush, President John F. Kennedy, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, USSR

I want to share a response to a comment that I recieved at Black Entertainment USA under the post of Coming to a movie theater soon: Monopoly - 2.20.2008.3 and my response. I feel both are more appropriate on this more political blog.

Every part of the following is verbatim and can be seen at the above link. I believe that the commentor meant to respond to one of my posts referring to the racial and false religious attacks against Senator Obama. [By the way, I do enjoy comments and generally don't care if the responder is anonymous or not. But I do not enjoy small minded racial, religious, or gender based prejudice and intolerance.]

"Anonymous said...
He is of muslim descent ding-a-ling. The name has everything to do with our future. Your not gonna have the women in the United States wearing burka's. How the hell has he helped the taxes in Illinois, What has he done for this state. We are one of the highest taxed States in the country. I cant stand hooples...the youth of the country voting for him are stupid."

M. Vass said...

Anonymous,

I can see why you didn’t place your name to this post. First, I find it quite interesting in your choice of term to try to denigrate and minimize my posts with. Generally I find the more eloquent wordings better, but yours was a cute blast from the past.

Beyond this, I feel the need to emphasize that you obviously placed the comment on the wrong blog. Considering that you posted this to my entertainment blog, under a post about Monopoly becoming a potential movie in the near future, I think you were a bit confused at the time. Or you were fearful of making the comment under a more appropriate post such as Democratic Presidential candidate’s tactics and behavior which is found at my political blog – VASS.

But, lets deal with the comment as it pertains to Senator Obama and his growing success at becoming the Democratic Presidential nominee.

As I stated in the post I referenced above, The Clinton campaign has used the background of Senator Obama’s parents (particularly his father’s religion) and his given name as a reason not to vote for him. You seem to agree. I find that ignorant.

Senator Obama is of African and American descent. To be more exacting he is of Negroid and Caucassian decent. The religious background of his parents is not a birthright nor a genetic imperitive passed on to him at conception.

Further, his name is not a determination of anything in his life. Were it true as you suppose, Billy Bob Thornton would never be an actor or person of note, but instead a poor farmer of dubious parentage and unlikely to be able to sign his name. Such is the stigma attached unfairly to such a name, and with no reasoning behind it. Another example might be John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It could be said that such a name could imply that this great President of our nation was gay and a drunk. Of course only the most insipid of minds would come to such a conclusion, but they might say this because his middle name comes from his mother and the last is related to his Irish lineage. Niether are true to my knowledge, nor affected his ability.

Or perhaps John Wayne, whose real name is Marion Robert Morrison, was gay? Or Albert Einstein was a Nazi because his name and parentage is German? I can go on throughout history, but the point is a name does not make a man. A man (or woman for that matter) makes the name renown by virtue of their actions.

But in your fear adled mind a mere name is enough to make you worry that women in America could be forced to wear burkha’s or that laws based on our constitution would be suplanted by those of a strick religious sect, which is not the most populous sect followed by a majority of Americans. I’m sure if you were told that the sky was falling or that certain actions with your hand would make you go blind you believed that too. I am also lead to believe that your knowledge of history is defined by your belief that those just like you were always right and beneficial in every act ever done. You are a fear monger, and appear ignorant of facts both present and past.

As for the taxation in Illinois, I cannot answer that. I am not a native nor resident of that state. Though I am sure that the taxes in that state are not the sole responsibility of this one elected official. Perhaps he has not done enough for your state, but sharing in that responsibility would be the Governor, another Senator, your Congressional representiatives, and the Federal Government most recently headed by President George Bush and his administration. But that is a legitiamte reason, if correct, to not vote for Senator Obama. That is your Constitutional Right. As is the Freedom of Religious Expression that this nation was founded under.

By the way, what is a hoople? I find that the urban dictionary has multiuple unofficial meanings. Do you mean you don’t like birds that cannot fly straight? Or the hardening of nipples? Or prehaps you are more against a preson who drinks to excess (normally refered to as a drunk or alcoholic). Possibly you mean to say that you dislike people similar to a character in the book Mott the Hoople that was lazy. Of course none of these meanings seem to apply to Senator Obama, my readers – I believe, with the exception of possibly the writter of the comment this is responding to, or myself.

You claim that the youth of this nation are stupid. I doubt that. While many may be misguided and/or are making decisions without understanding the full ramifications of the actions that is neither a new thing nor stupid. I in fact believe that the youth of today are educated, and far more knowledgable of current technology than many adults. Many are far more understanding of religious, racial and gender differences than their parents have ever been. Far more than what you appear to be with your limited scope of understanding and inability to use technology accurately.

So in fact I think you may be projecting your own fear and lack of willingness to become educated onto the youth of America. That seems far more apparent and resonable.

With any luck, and the attention of American citizens that actually care about the best interest of America, we will never have a President – nor any elected official at any governmental level – that reflects the small minded, zenophobic, religiously intolerant, illogical, uneducated, probably racist and gender biased mindset that I believe you have displayed.

That is what I believe. And I am happy to present my name not only throught my blogs, websites, and businesses but also on this post.

Michael Vass

Labels: Black Entertainment USA, Freedom of religion, Michael Vass, political bias, President George Bush, President John F. Kennedy, racial controversy, religious tolerance, Senator Barack Obama

Continued from The slippery slope of religion in America today Part 1...

America is becoming more divided these days. The divisions that have existed since the birth of this nation, based on race have never healed. Adding to that infected wound is now religion and the infection is enflamed. Yet this nation was equally based on the freedom of religion as well as that of individuals. If this is not resolved it will tear us all apart. That is my fear.

Forty years ago, even 15 years ago there was no question of religion in the election of the President of the nation. There was some question for President John F. Kennedy but it was hardly the degree of debate that we see posed to Mr. Romney, or hinted at Senator Obama.

How long before we re-enact the missteps of history? How long before this religion or that one feels so persecuted, in America, that they lash out? I’m not talking about fanatics who are so blinded as to act out in actions that violate their own belief systems. How long before we see divisions between those that believe and those that do not, those that believe in God by this name and not that.

Today the anger has been directed at Muslims, because of the fanatics that committed 9/11 and wish to do more. Tomorrow it could be the atheists, or Jews or Lutherans. Religious intolerance is like the boulder on a hill, next to impossible to stop once it starts rolling. That is what I fear.

We are doomed to repeat the lessons of History if we do not learn from them. That is a quote, though I forget from whom. They are true words. Millions, perhaps billions over the existence of Mankind have yet to learn. We seem to be sliding, forgetting that for all the technology, the ability to learn, we can follow those same footsteps as well.

Every religion believes it is wrong to kill. Every religion believes we should love one another. Every religion believes God made everyone. Yet we cannot live side by side. This isn’t about blame, there is more than enough for every side and religion. It’s about what we can do to not see the atrocities and suffering that has happened so many times before.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Mitt Romney, Muslim religion, President John F. Kennedy

Ok, just a few quick thoughts as getting everything set for the holiday purchases and work are keeping very busy.

I have to speak about Congressman Charles Rangel. He has renewed his efforts to pass a reform in the military re-instituting the draft. Of course virtually every Democrat has come out and stated they won’t support him in this decision. Representative Rangel has made his case based on the fact that there would be no war, in his opinion, if the sons and daughters of our nations’ politicians and the citizens they represent were potentially in harms way.

While this line of though has some merit, it is not my reason to agree. Yes, there is a fear among politicians to increase the number of white American sons and daughters that may be killed in fighting in defense of the nations’ policies. That seems factual considering the press to highlight the military as an option for the poor and minorities.

I find that serving in the military is an honor, and possibly an obligation. In times of peace I have no problem with a volunteer military. Those that do chose this option help to maintain the rights and lifestyle that is the daily life of every citizen. It has been the blood and sweat of all those that have and continue to serve that drives millions to seek out our nation as the best place in the world to live. This choice to offer their lives to support and enable citizens to make poor choices, or beneficial ones, is not something that can be bought and definitely not cheaply. On this point I disagree with Rep. Rangel, to a degree. Some do chose to join just for the future potential benefit in gaining an education, and many are minorities. But I feel more do so because they realize that for all the faults of the nation, this is the greatest nation in the world.

But I need to add that this is not a time of peace. Also the youth of this nation, whether African American, Latino/Hispanic, or any other minority, are in desperate need of self-discipline. In the world today we have the rampant use of drugs by kids of all ages, as young as 13 in some places. Kids today look up to and idolize violent entertainment figures, and the slang is filled with derogatory language that is misused to convey common pleasantries. For Black American kids there is a huge amount of dropouts (in males – 70%) and single parents. In the inner city many teens and young adults seek out lives in criminal pursuits – due to the money and public image portrayed in music videos and media. This says nothing of the failure in education across the nation. This screams a need to improve the self-discipline in the youth of the nation.

Given that, and the fact that I love this nation, I feel no reason why a draft would be a bad thing. To my knowledge every NATO nation has some form of draft. Like Greece, where everyone serves 2 years after high school. Not a big commitment, but enough to change a life. Is that to much to ask of a citizen. President John F. Kennedy once said “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Perhaps we need to teach a bit more than ask for rote memorization and the question of a draft wouldn’t be fearful.

I’ll speak more on this shortly.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Armed Forces, Congressman Charles Rangel, democrat, President John F. Kennedy