But if we look at the OT, I'm not sure one can deduce that "how their rule affects the poor and powerless" is the real measuring stick. I'll admit that my knowledge of the OT is shamefully weak, but it strikes me that most of the evil kings who led God's people into ruin usually kicked things off with idolatry of other gods closely followed by various forms of immorality. That behavior then usually led to bad decisions (like starting wars with other folks) and then God's judgment.
But let's put that aside and return to the idea that a good leader can be personally very flawed. David is our chief example. Though he was loved and favored by God, his wicked actions had very great consequences: he had to put down a rebellion led by his son Absolom. And all that happened AFTER David repented.
There are some corollaries between Billary and David. Bill's great episode of wickedness (taking advantage of a young intern and then lying under oath about it) was followed by judgment: 8 years of George Bush. But unlike David, Bill and Hillary NEVER REPENTED. He never had his ashes and sackcloth moment, and she never stopped blaming it all on the great right-wing conspiracy.
Ok, that was response part 1. Now I want to address Hillary's supposed credentials. I am somewhat flabbergasted at how Bill Clinton's success is always imbued on Hillary. I can't take credit for this quip, but here is a great comment from the blogosphere:
Counting Hillary's years a first lady as executive experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.
On what basis can we assume Hillary will be fiscally responsible and make sound decisions? Hillary has only had three executive responsibilities in her career.
One: health care under Bill. We all know how that went.
Two: managing the white house. She blew through her $400K budget with record speed, accepted extravagantly shady gifts to decorate the place, and famously rented out the Lincoln bedroom. She also fired the chief butler for talking on the phone with his old friend Barbara Bush. Classy!
Three, and this is the biggest: her campaign to become president. It has been well documented that her campaign has been fraught with wasteful spending, infighting, indecision and many, many mistakes. She started with a 30 point lead, national name recognition, the ultimate weapon (Bill), and yet somehow she has managed to lose 29 states.
In contrast, Barack Obama has run a lean, mean, internet savvy campaign. He has stumbled recently with the NAFTA thing, but that's about it. Otherwise it has been almost mistake free. He has raised more many, done a better job organizing, and has had the superior 50 state strategy.
And now Barack is asking the next question: what exactly is her foreign policy experience, besides voting for a failed war? She claims to have brought peace to Ireland, which is about true as Gore inventing the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment