Your words are adequate, but what have you actually done?

In business it is called “put up or shut up.” The reason the business world works is because intentions are worthless. Results are what matters. Wall Street is a meritocracy. Those who bring in the most revenue get the largest bonuses. The system works, with the only people carping from the sidelines being the useless individuals that contribute alot less but want their “fair share.”

When running for President, many Americans have actually gotten to the point where a good speech matters more than actual real accomplishments. In looking at the top candidates in both parties, it is easy to see that the only thing saving democrats from a 2008 electoral disaster is Iraq. They need and want Iraq to fail because they have nothing to offer. This is not news, but it needs to be reinforced. The democrats running for president are against President Bush, and for…well, that is unknown at this time.

John Edwards built a successful career suing people. He is a flim flam artist who managed to play on people’s emotions in a courtroom. His theme of “Two Americas” is so powerful because he plays into the class warfare theme with unparalleled success. Juries are often working class people, and giving them motivation to soak rich evil corporations is not complicated. They are supposed to leave biases behind, but they are human. Yes, John Edwards is qualified to teach law, practice law, or negotiate a deal here and there. However, his political record is undistinguished. He served one term in the US Senate. Let’s be clear why governors win the Presidency and senators don’t. Senators make speeches, while governors actually do things. It’s called governing. Executives have to make decisions and take responsibility. The buck stops with them. Senators can, and do, blame anyone and everyone else for their failure to read what they sign on such trivial matters such as whether to go to war. Senator Edwards is a charismatic speaker with zero significant political accomplishments.

Barack Obama did not even have six years of being peripheral before running for President. He had two. He is a celebrity candidate who offers feel good platitudes. He has no signifianct accomplishments in the Senate, perhaps because the paint is not even dry on his office wall. He is a likable guy, but so is the neighborhood guy at the local newstand. He is an intelligent man, but so is my former 5th grade teacher, who as far as I can tell, retired after a distinguished career teaching 5th grade. At some point somebody might point out that the Presidency is not for lightweights, and Obama is light as a feather in tersm of what he has actually done.

Hillary Clinton is not the strong successful careerwoman that many make her out to be. She is a lucky woman who married well. If this enrages some feminists, who cares? These same feminists suported Hillary when she as the first enabler. I could care less about her husband’s bimbo eruptions. What I care about is this nonsense that she is entitled to be president because she says so. Her political career has been marked by spectacularly colossal failures on a major level. Now her defenders say she learned from her 1994 health care debacle, but she didn’t. In 1980, only two years into her long running stint as first lady of Arkansas, she urged her husband, then Governer Bill Clinton, to take an aggressive hard line with the Arkansas Teachers Unions. Bill Clinton was subsequently fired, and only resurrected his career by bringing in Dick Morris in 1982, apologizing, and vowing to be less confrontational. Does this sound familiar? Hillary Clinton did mind her manners for a certain amount of time, but make no mistake about it. Attaching your name to popular legislation that 90% of Americans approve of and 90% of Senators have signed off on does not count as actually doing anything to make a difference. It is called jumping on the bandwagon, also known as frontrunning. This is why she is a New York Yankees fan, rather than a Chicago Cubs fan. It is easy to be popular when you are a follower. Her attempts to lead have been disastrous. She sees her opponents as evil, and then wonders why nobody of consequence wants to work with her on anything that matters. The bills that become law with her mild imprint would have happened without her. I am no fan of Ted Kennedy, but he is a leader in the Senate. Hillary Clinton has not been. Her most significant accomplishment has been to win over people in a blue state that should have liked her to begin with, if she were not her.

Spending time analyzing the top republican contenders could take eons, so the basics will be covered.

Rudy Giuliani took a failing city and turned it around. He cracked down on crime, reduced the welfare rolls, and cleaned the city, all under the eyes of newspapers that watched his every move waiting for him to fail. He became an American hero after 9/11, and rightfully so, but through 9/10 he had already become one of the great mayors of all time. His critics disliked his abrasive management style, but those are the same people that prefer warm and fuzzy words to actual deeds. Rudy gets things done, and successfully.

John McCain is a Senator, but he has been their 24 years. He has an actual record of real accomplishment. He is also a war hero. Being a former POW does not entitle him to the Presidency, but it does give him unique insight into war and foreign policy issues that few other people will ever possess. Before Bill Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam, he consulted McCain first, and made sure McCain was in every photo. He was the kingmaker in the 2004 election, because both candidates understood how much gravitas he had with the public. He has a long list of legislaive accomplishments, and even though I fiercely disagree with some of them, especially campaign finance reform, he has a record as a workhorse. He actually “does things” in the senate.

Mitt Romney is a successful businessman, which makes him no more qualified than John Edwards except that Mitt Romney did not have to sacrifice his nitegrity to do it. He also saved the Olypics in Salt Lake City Utah, which by itself would not make him qualified. However, his being Governor of Massachussetts does qualify him. He took a state that was once known as taxachussetts, and continued his predecessor Bill Weld’s record of tough fiscal discipline combined with tax cuts. He was a successful governor in a state that many think is ungovernable.

The other candidates are either 3rd tier, 4th tier, or undeclared. For now, this three on three battle is to succeed George W. Bush, a man who is not a brilliant speaker, but leaves a legacy of brilliant achievements, from his tax cuts to his Supreme Court choices to his fiercely leading the War on Terror, polls be d@mned. The three democrats have some rhetorical flourishes, but speaking well about what you will do is hollow when you have not done anything as of yet. The three republican candidates have records of real successful accomplishments.

When choosing a candidate, forget what they promise. See what they have actually done.


One Response to “Your words are adequate, but what have you actually done?”

  1. Don says:

    Thanks for visiting our blog. Per your request we are adding your blog to our Conservative Blogroll in our right sidebar.

    We do request a reciprocal link of Liberally Conservative as well.

    Thanks and Very Nice Blog.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.