Oval office is no place for OJT

Dear editor:

Barack Obama's "Presidential timber," as it was referred to, is little more than kindling wood.

Rebecca Lampman doesn't think experience counts for much, and Obama has the ability to learn. Sure be does. We all have, but the Oval Office is no place for OJT.

The next president is very likely going to have to deal with nuclear threats, border clashes maybe even another terrorist strike on our shores. The next president is going to have to make decisions, sometimes quickly and on his feet.

Ms. Lampman mentions the importance of Democratic intelligence, yet they seek to stick us with a "Commander in Chief" who apparently can't make decisions.

The Red Phone rings. President Obamapicks it up, and is told we have a major catastrophe going. Calls for a timelly "yes, no, do it, don't do it, get general or admiral so-and-so on the line now!" or something to that effect.

What's he going to do, say "present", like he did 125 times in the Illinois State Senate? In a crisis, he's not going to have two weeks to form a committee of some kind and take a straw poll.

He was only 143 days into his U.S. Senate seat when he started his Exploratory Committee for his presidential bid, and through his "charm and charisma," the Democrats flocked around him like they were all just hatched yesterday. To hear some of you people, you'd think this guy was some sort of "Second Coming."

OK, so Sarah Palin doesn't have a whole lot of experience either. That's fair enough, but her OJT would come while she's in the #2 position, as it should be.

Obama's lack of experience is a far greater issue than Palin's. He is running for president, she is not. He'd better know what he's doing, and he doesn't.

"Intelligence" eh? Democrats control the Congress and have for quite awhile now, yet they allow Bush to wage war without a Congressional declaration. They continued to fund it, but now in an election year, it's suddenly an issue.

The party of "intelligence" blocked drilling in the arctic 7 years ago, and now point fingers at Bush because gas is 4 bucks a gallon. I guess this "change we can believe in" too, if they get the White House. Oh, yeah, things are going to be different, alright.

And now they want us to vote for a guy, who, rather than take a stand on issues, plays it safe and merely votes "present" nearly 150 times. A guy who has spent more time running for president than he has "learning" his job as a U.S. Senator.

Is this the "new approach" to problem solving, you were talking about, Ms. Lampman? Yeah, he'd be a dandy.

I've never cared much for McCain, but at least he doesn't have terrorist friends, nor would he negotiate with them. In the event of an invasion, or an economic and social collapse (and you've got to know we're headed for something), I'd rather have a "moose killer" up topside, than an anti-gun liberal.

I do apologize for even insinuating any comparisons with Hitler, though. Hitler was a truly evil man, but you have to admit, even he could make decisions, and he definitely had a plan. That plan was twisted and ugly, but at least he had one. Obama makes pretty speeches, but nobody ever going to hear his plan, if he has one.

You'll notice also, that the media never seems to ask him any tough questions, nor do their reporters try to trip him up or intimidate him. They're too busy going after Palin, who's only running for vice president.

Finally, I would remind you "intelligent Democrats" out there, that while Bush is certainly the worst president I've ever seen, you cannot blame him for everything that's happened over these "last eight years," not with your party controlling the numbers in that Congress.

And for the record, the number one and two recipients of campaign donations from Fannie Mae, were Chris Dodd with over $165,000 and Barack Obama with over $126,000. Check it for yourself.

He raises his finger and lambasts the GOP for the economic crisis, but takes with his other hand. Yes indeed, this is change we can all "believe in."

Mike Bradbury