An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

Not The Time For On The Job Training (Guest Voice)

A controversy is raging over Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden’s comment that Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama could be tested by America’s enemies. The Obama camp says the testing could occur with any new President. GOPers say Biden was correct in warning about Obama in particular. That argument is made here in this Guest Voice post by conservative talk show host Michael Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

Not The Time For On-The-Job Training

Making Sense, by Michal Reagan

The media’s almost universal opinion that Sen. Joe Biden simply made just another one of his gaffes — when he warned that the election of the untested Barack Obama would inevitably result in a global crisis where our enemies take measure of the man by confronting him and America with a challenge — was dead wrong.

It was no gaffe; it was a clear warning that Obama will not only be tested, but also that he will not be up to the challenge and will need help in dealing with something he cannot deal with on his own.

I cannot remember a more frightening scenario, especially since it came from Obama’s own running mate and not John McCain or the Republican Party. I have no doubt Biden was sincere in alerting the nation to a very real threat to our national security — the prospect of a totally inexperienced and naive Barack Obama being confronted by an enemy he would rather talk with.

That the nation isn’t alarmed by this prospect, which Biden guaranteed would surely come about, is simply bizarre. Here in a post-9/11 world, when America’s foes have proven they’ll stop at nothing to bring America down to our knees, if the polls are correct voters are on the verge of electing a man to the presidency whose very election will light the spark of an international crisis in a nuclear age.

This is an unprecedented situation, but it’s not the first time the voters have chosen a president who lacked the bona fides required in a leader facing an international threat and a determined enemy.

Unlike Barack Obama, however, John Kennedy had been tested when in harm’s way during WW II, and had shown himself capable of acting with both courage and initiative.

Moreover he had been a first-hand witness at momentous events during his father’s ambassadorship to war-torn Britain and had even written a book, “Why England Slept,” about the crisis England faced because they failed to recognize the threat Hitler posed to their very existence.

Yet even with his experience evident when he won election in 1960, the Soviet Union thought he not only should be tested but was convinced he would fail the test.

As a result America found itself facing a nuclear war with the Soviets after Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev met with JFK, saw what he judged to be his weakness, and confronted America with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It was only after JFK promised to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey and pledged to halt all efforts to remove Fidel Castro from power that Khrushchev agreed to take his missiles out of Cuba.

We cannot afford another such crisis, yet if Joe Biden is correct that’s exactly what will happen if Barack Obama wins the presidency on November 4. He’s guaranteed it.

We can expect that the challenge to Obama to come from Iran which has already observed him promising to sit down with their leaders without preconditions, thus to meet with them as equals.

Iran has already shown how they react to U.S. presidents who show signs of weakness. They saw weakness in Jimmy Carter, and they seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days.

When my father won election in 1980 Iran had no need to test him; they had already taken his measure and he scared the daylights out of them. As a result, minutes after he took the oath of office the Iranians released the hostages.

A soon-to-be nuclear power, Iran is certain to test what they see as a politician with absolutely no experience. And given his demonstrated willingness to greet hostility with mere words eloquently spoken, we an expect Iran to risk a global crisis by facing him with a direct challenge to his leadership, probably by rattling their nuclear sword.

We had better heed Joe Biden’s warning and vote against an untested politician from Chicago’s rowdy and corrupt political machine.

©2008 Mike Reagan. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc.



8 Responses to “Not The Time For On The Job Training (Guest Voice)”

  1. kritt11 says:

    Yes Obama may be tested– as Kennedy was tested, as Truman was tested, as George W. Bush was tested—-that is part of the job. When that test comes I would rather have a cool headed president with a VP that has a lot of foreign policy experience, than a hot-headed one who once made an unfunny joke about “bomb, bomb,bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. McCain's approach will be the military one– while Obama's the diplomatic one.

    Michael, fearmongering only goes so far. I remember when your dad ran, there were similar fears about his lack of foreign policy experience. As it turns out, those fears were unfounded. Your dad faced our challenges with aplomb and much of his appeal lay in the way he reassured the nation and allowed us to hope. I can't say I agreed with him on everything, but his temperment and readiness was not something I questioned. So, give the new president a chance without prejudging. For no matter which party they come from , or their level of preparedness, every president learns on the job- including your dad.

  2. JMattM says:

    Is it just me or is the “on the job training” argument for the Office of Presidency complete BS? Kritt's right, no one's completely ready for the job. I take things Michael Reagan says with a grain of salt – Ron Jr. is a bit more objective and thoughtful.

  3. jonimp9 says:

    I still have a problem with the premise that there is a so called “post 9/11″ worrld that is different than the “pre 9/11″ world. Was there no terrorism before? Did we not try to fight it before? Were there no difficult international issue to deal with before?

    I suggest the difference is only that we see one political party taking that horrible crime and using it as leverage to scare the population into voting a certain way.

  4. kritt11 says:

    exactly–jonimp9

    Also, how the new president will do will also depend on whether we as a country can put our petty differences aside and get behind him- whether its McCain or Obama or even Barr. I get the feeling that the pundits are more invested in the new president failing so that they can harp on it from the beginning.

  5. DLS says:

    QED: “No time for on-the-job training” disqualifies Obama for the Presidency. Congratulations.

  6. onleyone says:

    makes me wonder just what reagan thinks mcCain's chances of living through his first term might be, and how ready ms. “little starbursts” is for the job. certainly sen. obama is the more qualified candidate intellectually speaking.

  7. kritt11 says:

    What fascinates me is that many Conservative Republicans still see Palin as the asset and Mac as the problem. How on earth can they seriously trust someone who doesn't even understand what the VP's role is, has no foreign policy experience, and who got a D in Economics, to take on the presidency during our worst crisis in memory?

  8. Jim_Satterfield says:

    It's Michael Reagan, for God's sake. If it wasn't for who his father was he wouldn't be in a position to get public attention for his rants. Keep it in perspective.

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity