Raggin' on the Pres

The first time I ever heard someone raise a concern about a woman ascending to the presidency was when Geraldine Ferraro was the VP on the Democratic ticket when Walter Mondale challenged Reagan. I was 9 years old, and I remember hearing how it wouldn’t be safe to have a woman with her “finger on the button.”

After the years and years (and years and years and years) of hearing men say (even men on the Left, I might add) that you couldn’t trust a woman to have her finger on the button, especially during certain times of month (insert manly guffaws here), and being repeatedly put in the position of one of the (unfortunately) rare women who was passionate enough about politics to mount a defense on women’s behalf, I think I’ve earned the right to question the credentials of the person with his or her finger on the button for any reason I damn well please. And I have to tell you, two recent stories have got me thinking, This is the man with his finger on the button?!

Number One: FAIR reports that the NY Times decided to kill a story about the mysterious bulge appearing under Bush’s jacket during the three debates, despite there being credible evidence that he was, indeed, wired. Aside from the Times’ outrageous decision to withhold information that our president is likely a cheat days before the election, which is a whole other issue, the very real probability that he was wired raises some serious red flags, namely if he had help, why did he still suck so bad? Considering his exponentially better performance at the SOTU address, for which he was well-prepared and well-reheared (ergo more relaxed), the explanation comes down to his inability to perform well and/or think clearly under pressure, neither of which are particularly desirable shortcomings for a man who is daily required to make huge decisions, and sometimes not always with a generous surplus of thinkin’ time.

Number Two: Bush’s recent speech on Strengthening Social Security, given in Tampa, Florida. He explained his plans thusly:

Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.

He obviously has no idea what he’s talking about. He shouldn’t need to keep working on his ability to describe a plan he’s been promoting since he was running against Gore over four years ago.

Someone who is so demonstrably incompetent as to have to swindle his way through a debate and babble incoherently when faced with the proposition of giving a pre-scheduled address on one of the key policies of his current term is unfit to be trusted with the decisions we need our President to be able to make, clearly and decisively, at any given moment.

He should never have been given the opportunity to have his finger on the button—any time of month.