Who needs private sector experience in a “hope and change” world?

Who needs private sector experience in a “hope and change” world? Apparently not too many cabinet members in the Obama administration.

This graphic certainly explains alot.    It would explain the vast growth in government jobs made available, the lack of understanding or concrete plans for generating private sector jobs, and the disdain for capitalism that sits like a never-ending virus in the Obama administration.

Another couple of interesting tidbits:

Among President Obama, his Vice President and 15 Cabinet officers, number with military experience:  2 (Gates at Defense and Shinseki at Veterans Affairs).
Number of lawyers:  8.

This is the change that NO ONE was waiting for!

Even though Obama is clearly setting a new low standard here, in a broader sense, this graph also depicts how far from their constituents many in Washington can be, even as far back as 1909.  I mean don’t you think at least a comfortable majority of public sector experienced individuals should be a common statistic in cabinet picks?  But that hasn’t happened much in the last 100 years. 

I’m sure the Founders didn’t much count on “career politicians” and lawyers running our country.  Seems in the last hundred years, only Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes understood the need for a big dose of private sector experience when running this country….

(H/T: The American Thinker – Private Sector experienc in Obama’s cabinet…graph of the day)


Cheney–Lynne, that is–blisters Obama on his Cold War history rewrite, his anti-Americanism, and his ego-centric Presidency

From Lynne Cheney’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, straight talk from someone a whole lot smarter than Messiah Obama — On the Cold War:

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: “The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not “competition in astrophysics and athletics.” It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet “sphere of influence” was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

AMEN to that one, sister!  More…

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended.One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push “reset” — or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Lynne Cheney on Obama’s anti-Americanism:

Mr. Obama’s method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old.”

Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, not so much.

and on Obama’s ego-centric view of his Presidency:

The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism — Obama exceptionalism. “We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand,” one Obama handler has said. What they don’t seem to realize is that once you’re president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.

Wow! —  last week Sarah Palin called it plainly and correctly on Obama’s economic policy when she said it was immoral.  From Palin’s TIME magazine interview:

President Obama is growing government outrageously, and it’s immoral and it’s uneconomic, his plan that he tries to sell America. His plan to “put America on the right track” economically, incurring the debt that our nation is incurring, trillions of dollars that we’re passing on to our kids, expecting them to pay off for us, is immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense. So his growth of government agenda needs to be ratcheted back………allow free enterprise and the industrious Americans who run our small businesses and want to raise a family, allowing our families to grow and prosper and thrive, Americans who still believe in those ideals to get in there and effect change. I want to work for people who believe in that

This week Lynne Cheney correct Obama’s history and slams his anti-American views.

Perhaps we are getting a clearer picture of the conservative movement of the near future …..and it’s wearing lipstick and heels!

Levin: Reagan Challenged His Party from the Right. McCain Challenges His Party from the Left.

Reagan Challenged His Party from the Right. McCain Challenges His Party from the Left.

That is directly from Mark Levin…..and he is OH SO RIGHT!  Well put.  McCain is no poster child for conservativism, or even, in my mind, national security (ie, his promotion of amnesty, using his own POW experience to set national policy to close Gitmo are two great examples)

McCain continues to invoke Reagan’s name in advertising and when speaking.  It would be almost laughable if it weren’t so serious.  Reagan was not perfect….but McCain is no Reagan……and arguments in that direction are pretty baseless.

Levin lays out some great differences between McCain and Reagan.  You can view all of his article here, but some excerpts are below:

  • Reagan would never have used the phrase “manage for profit” as a zinger to put down a Republican opponent. Reagan believed in managing for profit because he believed in free enterprise. 
  • McCain believes the oil companies are evil, and said it during one of the debates.
  • Reagan opposed limits on political speech. The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and the media ownership rules, which helped create the alternative media that McCain despises. Reagan’s reverence for the Constitution would never have allowed him to support, let alone add his name to, something like McCain-Feingold.  
  • The one area Reagan drastically increased spending was defense. And while McCain is said to be among the most capable of hawks, he used little of his political capital and media savvy to oppose the Clinton cuts — or to warn the nation about the rising threat from al-Qaeda, for that matter. He did not call for the resignation of his good friend Bill Cohen, who was a terrible defense secretary. McCain was not alone, of course. But a more fulsome examination of McCain’s senatorial record relating to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement is met mostly with silence or admonitions to avert our eyes.
  • Reagan would not have led efforts to grant the enemy constitutional and international rights, as McCain has. I believe he would have sided with President Bush. After all, as president, Reagan rejected efforts to expand the Geneva Conventions to cover terrorists. This is a key area of departure for McCain not only from Bush but most national security advocates. But, alas, we must avert our eyes, again.