THIS is a really good speech. It's really incredible to me how much more sense he makes on these issues than do McCain or Clinton. "Experience" my ass. What good is experience if you keep making the wrong decisions? What good is experience if you don't know anything about the middle east (as McCain apparently doesn't.) I understand standing by Ron Paul, and even voting for Ralph Nader... Those guys speak their version of the truth 100% and that's commendable. But I just cannot understand how anyone could vote for John McCain or Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Obama should win this election in a landslide if people are pay any attention at all to the real issues.
He's got my vote right now (after Ron Paul), but I fear that Nader will steal democratic votes. I really really really don't want McCain in office... nor Clinton. I'd love to see Paul run third party (despite his continuing statements that he won't), and steal votes from McCain.
The reality is, Ron Paul has no interest in who wins this election. He's committed to make real changes, in people and parties. He's not holding out hope that he or someone else will be a messiah. It's people like Paul, that end up making lasting change. If Obama loses (and by all rights, he should win a landslide, but no one can account for Diebold), then no one will give a crap what he thinks 12 months from now. Paul's people have already started re-writing Republican party platforms in Texas, Nevada, Washington State, Alaska, Wisconsin, Missouri. Anyway, I will continue to hope that Obama backs up his wonderful speeches with some meaningful action. In the Senate. He can start by opposing the Homegrown Terrorism Bill (S. 1959) which basically criminalizes political thought and violates the Constitution. Obama supposedly lectured on Constitutional Law. Dennis Kucinich has already said he believes this Bill is unconstitutional. What is Obama waiting for? If he can't determine that, while sitting on the Homeland Security Committee, than he is not fit to be President. And no, I'm not slandering Obama, this is a legit criticism. Hopefully his supporters continue to pressure him to do the right thing. Of course, he continues to hold out against doing the right thing, which leads me to believe that despite his wonderful rhetoric, he is not a candidate of principle. An Obama supporter on the forum wrote some time back, that this was a guy who would be a guy who could bring people together and heal the partisan divide to "get things done". Personally, I think government spends too much, taxes too much, and makes war too much. Maybe we need a government that does LESS and a President who is a leader and not a compromiser. If Obama is just going to be another candidate like Bush in 2000, who talks a good game but won't walk the walk, then to hell with him. Vote for some 3rd party candidate. Send DC a message. You're sick of their lamestream candidates. END RANT
100% agreed with everything you said.Obama has been skipping on action a lot [All the Nv's in the voting record]. He can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk ?
Guerilla, I've read the bill, and while I can understand why it would trouble you (and, parts, me), I don't quite see what RP sees in its introduction. Here's my take. Bear with me - unfortunately, in my view, this isn't a simple thing, as we face a zero sum game between absolute security and absolute tyranny (see below). It isn't a zero sum game when we choose somewhere else than the nodal termini of this continuum. In other words, there has always been a zero-sum game between individual liberty and the right of society to protect itself. Unimpinged personal liberty is a state of lawlessness, and unimpinged police powers to the state are by definition a tyranny, a totalitarian police state. Choosing from along this continuum has always been a difficult thing. But to deny either tendency exists is to deny the reality of the Oklahoma city bombings, as well as the unconstitutional intrusion of the government into the daily lives of its citizens, as embodied in the Patriot Act. We have a right to live in peace and security - in fact, the government has the duty to provide it, protecting its citizenry from harm, from within and from without; and we have a right to be free of unconstitutional intrusion by that same government. These thoughts first came to me while in a seminar on Constitutional law, at Berkeley. Guerilla, you mentioned Obama's background in constitutional law and here, I think, Sen. Obama poses the question quite well: In this light, as I read S. 1959, there are parts that trouble me, and parts that do not, at least with this bill, trouble me. To the "do not trouble me" first. I see it largely as a bill authorizing research into the causes of ideological violence, not the implementation of a new regime to further curb civil liberties. This is encapsulated in Sec. 899b, Par. 5: And, structurally, encapsulated in the creation of the research body, discussed in Sec. 899D: The act also apparently seeks out what other nations have done, or are doing, to deal with acts of terrorism on their soil (Sec. 899C, Par. 2): To the part that troubles me, well, we only have to look at the last several years; while it isn't laid out, the potential for abuse is there, particularly given recent past history, and the bill is troublingly vague. For example, the use of the word "should not" over "must not," along with instruments to ensure a "will not", are in particular troubling (Sec. 899B, again): And, in general, that the study and findings derived from it can (and, almost assuredly, will) be used to implement sweepingly unconstitutional procedures gives pause. But, it gives pause - the potential is in this bill, but no bill exists that passes the line. It therefore doesn't bring me to react for a wholesale rejection of the legitimate concerns raised. I think it's very important to be specific with concerns, and careful in discerning realities - whether erring towards a state of absolute lawlessness, or absolute tyranny. Fording that stream is a difficult thing, and Guerilla, rightfully, it is important we're all vigilant in taking a close look. To Obama and his stand on this, Lightless, you may not know but the bill is presently in committee. Rightly or wrongly, it is Senate tradition to wait for a bill in committee to either be killed, or brought before the full chamber, before commenting publically. Not really sanguine about it, but it doesn't surprise me Obama hasn't definitively declared where he is on this. To be truthful, I would expect the bill to morph into something quite different from what it is now, should it reach the Senate floor. Once we have that final form, we see what we face in reality.
@ lightless, his lack of votes don't really trouble me. Although he should be forced to relinquish his seat if he plans on finishing out his Presidential run. Every sitting member should under similar circumstances. You either make your votes, or you give up your seat. We are paying Obama, Clinton and McCain to be Senators. Not to campaign for President. This really hurt the Congressmen who ran, but most of them tried to balance their schedule so as not to miss votes. My issue is that he doesn't actually come out strong on behalf of anything. "Change"? He's louder than a sonic boom. A position on law? Quiet like a lawyer. @NPT, the actual Bill obviously bothers me, but is not the issue here. His lack of a clear position is what does. That we are supposed to believe he does not have a position yet, is silly. If he believes in this legislation, he should support it. If not, he should condemn it. We don't need another President that requires a secret decoder ring to understand. I don't want anyone who supports Obama to stop supporting Obama. I'm not trying to win "Paul points". I want Obama supporters to pressure the hell out of their fellow supporters and candidates to keep the candidate on the side of good, because if "we the people" don't apply pressure, he will likely succumb to the forces of evil which are ever present a man this close to the throne. But I am getting tired of Obama making brave speeches and not making brave votes. His voting record doesn't back up his claim of wanting change. With his profile right now, he could cast votes like Zeus hurling bolts from Mount Olympus. He could push his Presidential opponents around with their waffling. I really dislike legislators who don't take action when they have the chance to. He can be a leader NOW. He can make a difference NOW. What if he doesn't win the Presidency? Is that it for Obama? Is this a referendum on change?
OK, Guerilla. I would have thought the bill itself was a primary concern. It is to me. It is in my opinion a gross mischaracterization of Obama that you have made, though it is a common tactic. As a guy who has sponsored or co-sponsored close to 600 bills in two congresses, 15 of which have become law, I wouldn't exactly say he is sitting on his hands and avoiding issues. On the subject of this thread, for instance, it has consistently been Obama's mission to support a necessary security policy while safeguarding civil liberties, which for reasons I discuss above, I support. On his work amending the Patriot Act, for instance, here's what he had to say in 2006: Politics is messy, and it isn't fun. From the standpoint of absolute principle, your disgust for compromise is understandable; but I believe the world is what it is, and that is an imperfect realm demanding a set of less than perfect solutions. We cannot have a lawless land of absolute individual liberty, nor can we have a police state. To balance the need for security - to have better tools to avoid and Oklahoma City bombing, or the like - with the need for individual freedom from undue state intrusion on our lives, it requires thought, and workable solutions. To adopt a principled stand and avoid any practical solution is no different, to me, from Bush's simplistic declaration that a wholesale transplanting (even if it were genuinely accomplished) of western-style democracy to traditional regimes globally will be a panacea on into infinity. I take my cue from the beginning of Thomas More's Utopia, which I've discussed before. Obama's record is quite clear, and it is one of achieving the possible while guided by a set of consistent principles and moral philosophy.
To imply that liberty requires an absence of law is a gross mis-characterization, which I have seen posted a few times recently. Without a doubt. I think we can also say it is usually not fair either. Which surprises me when people recommend more political action as solution. I'm not such a zealot that I don't recognize this, but at the same time, it's basically an admission that "better" might be more trouble than it is worth, and "ok" is good enough. Which isn't the spirit IMO of human curiosity, inventiveness, of self-realization. It's not what has inspired us to improve tomorrow or solve problems. Consistent principles are not subject to compromise, or they would be inconsistent. In Obama's case, his most consistent principle may be compromise, in which case, that makes him a politician. I'd be happy to read what people think Obama's consistent principles are. Principles, not planks in the platform.
Guerilla, you are misstating what I wrote - please take a look again. To frame the question, I posed absolute liberty, and absolute tyranny; by definition, the liberty to do whatever one wishes, without constraint of any kind. In other words, by definition, lawlessness and anarchy. Against that, I said, is absolute state power, or the totalitarianism of a police state. The two exist as a zero sum game. The right of society to protect itself is a worthy thing, and the right of the individual to live free from state intrusion on his or her life is also a worthy goal. Unfortunately, in their absolutes, these two things are inimical to each other, and finding where on the curve a society lies is precisely the difficult task of political economies, but the only one afforded us as imperfect beings, creating and living in an imperfect social order. We have lived in a society dangerously close to one end of the curve, or the other, over the course of our young history. Now, we will never reach an accord on some very basic principles; that much is clear. Which doesn't stop me from respecting your thoughts and considering your philosophy and the merits therein. I maintain that living in society requires a compromise of one's absolute desires; one cedes some measure of personal sovereignty in order to live among one's fellows in a state of civilization. Therefore, when I say that politics is messy, I am saying that the easy road is to take a kind of quasi-religious stand; in the example of the last several years, I would say, Bush's doctrine of arrogance, based upon a set of simplistic principles that have no correlation with reality in terms of international politics, is a great example. I have said it before: A Wilsonian vision of exporting western-style democracy far and wide, in toto, is ridiculously simplistic and therefore egregiously flawed as a premise from which to pursue a foreign policy. There are many other examples, in my mind, many of which I have raised with you over the last several weeks. I do not know where you might have gotten the idea that I am o.k. with complacency. As you know, I was a kid who lived on the side of freeways 30 some years ago, who ended up an honors grad student at Berkeley; I've busted my ass and am sincere in my desire to make the world a better place when I leave it than when I came. If my life's desire is anything, it is the lifelong search for human betterment, and I honestly don't know why one would presume I, you, anyone, would want otherwise. If it isn't evident, let me say it now: I presume we're all after a better world. We disagree only on how to get there. I can't agree with you in saying that compromise means a lack of principles. In case you or others haven't read it, I'd point to the first section of More's Utopia as an interesting departure point. I'll reprint the relevant section here: It's an imperfect world; you do what you can accomplish. You decide among a host of things and declare what you can, and cannot live with, in accomplishing good. It doesn't mean a personal apostacy to accept this human condition, in my opinion. This is my philosophy. As to Obama, I've said my peace. His Senate record is available, as is his platform for his candidacy. I am not surprised at all that based on your personal ethos, you could not support him, and I respect you for your reasons; for the same reason, as I earlier said, I could not support a Ron Paul presidency, though I respect the candidate on the merits. I do accept there can be such a thing as good government, led by good people, and am proud to support the Senator. I do not wish to return to the vituperative exchanges of our recent past, Guerilla. We are far removed from each other in philosophy and background, but we can honor each other for our respective points of view. I apologize for my transgressions in this way over the last period of time, and extend a virtual hand.
See, I disagree on this. I don't believe that lawlessness and anarchy are liberty. For sure they are an extreme, and it's requisite opposite extreme would not be a police state. It would likely involve being hermetically sealed in a chamber, without light, sound, temperature change, etc. Perfect security by limiting exposure to anything. Even that's not a very good contrast. Regardless, liberty does not mean that one does not have the right to protect oneself, nor does it mean that one has the right to harm others. And I resent (a little) the implication that liberty is anarchy. There is absolutely no moral justification for the state to intrude on the liberty of anyone, as long as they are not interfering with the liberty of others. The state can't by majority vote or popular decree decide to search my house, without provocation or justification. That is not a security compromise. That is a direct violation of my right to privacy, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental rights. The right to be left alone (unharassed). Obviously perfection is not available at any point on the curve. Perfection is out of the question. But there are better options than others. Like in the movies, when the hero gives his life to save the kids/woman/family/town etc. Obviously a perfect ending would be good triumphing over evil AND everyone surviving. But in the example scenario, we don't get perfection, but we still get good over evil. And that's the difference between making the moral and principled decision, and compromising. Maybe the hero stays alive but the bad guys move on to the next town and terrorize someone else. I agree that we might never reach accord, although it will be fun having the small arguments as we try. I also agree that compromises may be in the best interest of the individual and society. But I don't believe that has to come at a concession of sovereignty, but rather a personal decision. Like my PM to you. It probably had some positive effect, big or small, and could be seen as a compromise, but was of my own volition, with no external coercion. Not to toot my own horn, but these are good decisions, honest compromises. Now if CrazyRob told me I had to start posting responses to you or he would ban me, the compromise I might have made to stay on DP, wouldn't have the same value, even if it ended up having the same effect. I hope this is making sense. And yeah, neo-colonialism, mercantilism, neo-conservatism, the cold warrior mentality is not worthy of a great country like America with so much diversity, opportunity and potential. We are capable of so much more than mimicking the failed imperial strategies of past factions. Ok, it was not meant to be personal, and if I posted to you in a manner that indicated it was, I apologize. My point however, is that compromise isn't only about accomplishing a little or less than all. Many times, it is also giving something up, and these are not zero sum trades. For example, Obama voted yes on the Patriot Act. Even with the amendments, it still prohibits the right to free speech, for the guilty, innocent and otherwise. This is unacceptable. Free speech is a universal right under all circumstances. How could he vote on a Bill which included this? Does he feel that compromising free speech was worth it? I don't expect you to answer, but this is a great example of the slippery slope of compromise. Btw, there is no defense IMO for his Patriot Act vote. The Bill was garbage, and it remains garbage. It is the antithesis of the "change" he espouses on the trail. And it's an important Bill because it's a key part of Bush's police state legislation he is putting in place for Clinton. In Obama's case, you may have a point. I have no idea what his principles, besides the principle of compromise, are. I get it. This is where we have to diverge just a little. I believe there can be better government, not a good one. lol Or as the old saying goes, "the government which governs least, governs best". I still believe in people being able to self-govern. For better or worse, I believe in man, the inherent goodness and compassionate spirit of mankind, and while it's not perfect, I don't think that people will naturally devolve to evil if left to their own devices. If I may, my vision of the future involves a lot more independence and a lot less state control. With the opportunity and prosperity of the past to build on, people can start life further ahead on the curve, and less likely to engage in the counterproductive (to self and to the many) behavior of when we were less enlightened. I'm all for a clean slate on what has been said, and a better understanding of where the other person is coming from as we continue forward. No matter what, I'm trying to stay on message, on point from now on. As little name calling and antagonism as possible with everyone.
Guerilla, I believe in some ways you're mirroring my stated points, and in others, I believe we're missing each other as to what I am saying. You deserve nothing short of a full reply, but tonight I'm sitting down to "Atonement" with the wife, so won't be on until tomorrow or so. The philosophical discussion alone is a worthy one. I am steeped in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, etc., and love the theoretical discussions surrounding the "state of nature" and society of man. We'll check in later.
Whoever said that "great minds think alike" had no idea of guerilla's and northpoint's existence Talking about machiavelli, here's a little something that makes sense in the context of obama
He hasn't had much of a chance. And he's probably been too cautious when the chances came. Atleast he shows an eloquence of speech and he's shown young people all over the world, the value of being nice, decent, polite and inspiring.
Good morning. Lawlessness, anarchy, the social contract "state of nature": since laws are an instrument of government entities, lawlessness is necessarily the absence of government. There is no normative statement of moral philosophy in the statement: Absolute liberty is a state of lawlessness, and under such a state (small "s") individuals may do whatever they wish - whatever good, whatever evil - unfettered by state, legal constraint. "Right" and "wrong" do not enter into the picture; in a state of absolute liberty (and remember - I am talking about the nodal termini of a curve, so I will say it again that I am discussing absolute liberty), people may do what they will without government interference, and the only constraint is one's personal ethos that guides one's choices, or the moral persuasion - or power - of another. Its polar opposite must indeed be the maximum control of individual lives by state power; a society where every individual act is governed by laws; a totalitarian, police state. These two are necessarily inimical to each other, and are necessarily a zero sum game. Every law limits the degrees of freedom of individual action; every law limits personal liberty to some extent. To use your antipathy to taxes as an example, you argue "why should I pay taxes, when I choose not to use the services paid for therein?" The same holds for law: why should you obey a law, when you disagree with it? To obey that law is a limit on your personal liberty. In other words, I think what you say: Is incorrect, unless you construe the statement "I choose to obey a law I don't believe in" as a personal choice. Of course that's true, but naming it "choice" to obey a law - the coercive instrument of the state - as opposed to an acknowledgement of the ceding of one's sovereignty, well, it seems to me this is semantic, and, in my opinion, a bit of abstrusion. In this vein, please let me repeat something you earlier said, regarding taxes: I do not see "personal choice" in the above; You pay taxes, though you loathe it, because it's the law, and you do not want the consequences. I call that a loss of sovereignty. So, because we agree to live in a society, we agree to some measure of lawmaking. We do not choose to exist at the terminus of the zero-sum curve between absolute liberty and absolute totalitarianism. Precisely where on that curve we do choose to reside is what I said it was, the difficult task taken up by political economies. I say you are in essence mirroring what I earlier said because it seems to me: Is in essence the same as: To the subject of this thread, in terms of the above, as I earlier said, it seems to me we have before us two worthy goals. Society has a right to defend itself, and in society, the principle means to do that is some kind of police power. By way of personal example, I think you know this, post-9/11, I worked on the 82nd Floor of Sears Tower. Every morning, I walked a gauntlet of security checkpoints to get into work. Drag. I would rather have gone in without having to be scanned and pass through an airport-style screening process. But given the saliency of the Tower as a target, these measures didn't, and don't, seem unreasonable to me. At the same time, every citizen has a right to pursue his or her life free from unwarranted government intrusion. The Bush years have torn the latter to shreds, in my opinion. To the above example of the Sears Tower, if because I worked there, the state put taps on my phones, or tagged my wife whenever she left the house, I'd have a problem. In this regard, though it failed, the introduction of the SAFE Act was an effort in this way; a compromise, designed to ameliorate the civil rights abuses of the original Patriot Act: Obama co-sponsored the Act. It failed, and I've already provided Obama's thoughts on this: In other words, seek a solution that ameliorates the situation, in line with principles consistently held throughout. This, to me, is a compromise, and I stand by my philosophy, namely that this is what happens in civil society. In community with other beings, none of us get exactly what we want; all of us have an idea of how to make the world better; what results is our best efforts to exact that better world. You, or I, may not like the outcome, so we work to amend it - but to engage in the process is to engage in the world, to me, and I therefore do not find that anathema; as well, because Obama does it, does not make him a man without principle. In fact, I'd say, quite the opposite. As I earlier said, it seems to me the easy thing is to stand on principle and accomplish nothing. The difficult thing is to get one's hands dirty and work to make the situation better.
And this is where we disagree. It is very easy to go with the flow, or as they say in Congress, "go along so we can get along". The easiest thing is to make the easy votes everyone else is making, then head out for lunch. What is hard in my opinion, is actually reading the Bill, then casting a vote of conscience and principle, then when everyone has left staying behind with the janitors and the Speaker of the House to make a statement for the record. A record hardly anyone will see except on C-Span or if they bother to do some research. But you still make it, and you explain the principle behind the vote. Can you imagine how hard it is to run a campaign without the special interest money Obama and the other front runners received? How hard it is to get re-elected in your district, when your own party wants to see you thrown out? When you are at a financial and tactical disadvantage because instead of talking tough about lobbyists, you have made yourself so useless to special interests, they avoid coming to your office at all? No, I think it is easy to compromise a little to get something done. In fact, I think when principle doesn't enter into decision making, just "what can I get done", all sorts of compromises can happen quickly and often. I have asked numerous times, what is the "change" that Obama goes on about? I have yet to receive even an attempt at an answer. I have asked numerous times, why his voting record does not reflect his rhetoric? Obviously none of us can answer for Obama, his thoughts or his sincerity. And yet you're the only one willing to admit, that his votes are probably ones of compromise, and that he may in fact be the compromise candidate. Re: SAFE, Durbin is a liar. He voted 24 hours after the House, who had only 15 minutes to read a bill that is full of amendments to the USC. Unless he worked non-stop with legal experts, there is no way he could have known what was in, and what the effects of the Patriot Act were, when he voted on 10/25/2001. Which is what worried me about compromise politicians. They vote with the herd. RP and I believe a couple others didn't vote for the Patriot Act, based on the principle that you don't vote for a Bill you don't understand or haven't had time to read. This is the mature and responsible approach. Voting because the people are upset, the Bill has been named to provoke an emotional response, or just because you don't want to be seen doing "nothing" in a time of crisis, even risking doing the wrong thing... You're right, we'll have to respect each others opinion, but disagree. A straightforward question then. Do you believe that laws make men better?
Better? No. Men (and women) only make themselves better, or worse. Good laws, to the extent we impute a normative "good," are laws that exist to ensure we have a set of rules we can more or less live with, given that this isn't Eden. For example, laws making it a world of hurt to dump egregiously sick cows into the nation's school food program, that go to feed our children; I consider that a good thing. And so on, throughout the history of man rising from the primordial swamp to exist in a community with his fellows. Bad laws? Work to end them. This is the process of civil, democratic society. That's my take. Much like my take is that a society without laws is no society, but Hobbes's world: a life "nasty, brutish and short, that comes at the end of cold steel." Guerilla, we do have a fundamental difference. Whether it's the first part of More's Utopia, or the last part - a great discussion between Gauvain and his erstwhile teacher, Cimourdain - in Victor Hugo's Ninety-Three (a Rand fave, by the way, rightfully so), there is good that comes from seeking to improve the world, given the world. I do not consider it brave to fold up one's arms on a stand of principle and leave lying something that can otherwise be improved. I will repeat: You, I, all of us, compromise every day. As I said, you continue to pay taxes, though every fiber of your being calls them an immoral intrusion on your right to pay for only those things you support. Why? On principle, why not refuse, and stand up for what you believe? Or might it achieve more to work - within the codex of your staunch beliefs - to end the tax structure you so strongly abhor? Guerilla, as we do have a fundamentally different view of things in this way, we really have no common ground here. I do enjoy your posts, and will continue to do so, but regarding the above, I am only repeating things, and so, I've said my peace.
One can progress their ideology without compromising their principles. Your presentation of principle as being a hindrance to progress, because a lack of immediate tangible results are interpreted as inactivity. In short, no accounting for nuance. My decisions are individual, subjective and taken in an ordinal manner. Your assumption that my decision to not cave into coercion is a higher or equal priority than my other principles would be incorrect. For reasons you probably haven't considered. This approach to the discussion is annoying me, and I shouldn't have to explain why. Perhaps, but thats not why I make that decision. The reason the discussion is not advancing is because we are talking about everything but Obama. We're talking about other legislation, we're into philosophical discussions of principle, law, morality etc etc. My question remains. What (as you see them) are Obama's principles? In your observation and understanding of him, what in your opinion, are principles he holds in high regard? All I see when I look at how he votes on the major issues, is that he is a compromiser. He will vote with the crowd, Republican or Democrat, right or left, right or wrong. You may think RP is ineffective, but when he makes a speech protesting legislation, he actually voted against it, he doesn't vote for something he doesn't believe is a good idea. Whatever the basis for those ideas (Obama or Paul) it's about how seriously they take themselves. Which is my core issue with Obama. What does he stand for? Mock Paulites all you want, they have an idea of where their man stands, and how he would vote on legislation before it is written. Can we say the same about Obama? In the end, it sorta angers me, because if Paul is right but votes alone, people mock him. By your standard of "git er dun", his vote against the Iraq war was bad, because he didn't enable the President to "do something". His hustling to produce meaningful anti-terrorism legislation that doesn't hinder civil liberties generated no traction, yet you will try to defend Obama's stance to limit personal liberty (basic stuff from the Magna Carta, not absolute lawlessness) and again, by your measure, Paul has failed because the legislation he produced did nothing. When your standard of quality is quantity... Anyways I'm done with this unless you have something re: Obama to discuss further. These are some of my favorite Calvin Coolidge quotes, they are very relevant to the discussion of "Who is Obama?"
Thats real nice, but right now were looking for a President, not a school teacher. We need someone who will be strong against terrorism.