Barack Obama's Appeal is...What, Exactly?
Can anyone, anyone tell me just what is so great about Barack Obama? From what I've seen of him, he's got nothing to recommend him for the presidency and his whole campaign has been based on indistinct notions of "hope" and "change" that really don't mean anything.
I see the news, and I read things like this by Mark Steyn and the "Obama-rama" just doesn't make sense. Why, why, why would anyone with a brain be supporting Obama for the presidency? Let's just say you are in fact a liberal and you want to see liberal policies enacted. Great. Why not vote for Clinton, who will quite frankly be better positioned both in Congress and abroad to meet those liberal goals?
You read Obama's ideas on the issues and they are so much fluff. How, pray tell, would President Obama "secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years" if he is also committed to withdrawing our forces from the enemy's home turf of the Middle East? Does Obama mean to say that he will continue American Interventionism, only that his version will be specifically targeted against nuclear weapons, or Al-Qaeda, or whichever problem? How will he accomplish this without violating the rights of your friendly neighborhood fifth-column terrorist?
How do you fight an enemy that uses a cellphone to communicate? Eavesdrop. How do you foil a plot to attack a country that is planned entirely via e-mail? Hack. How do you make this happen if your agents are not empowered to search within our own borders? Further, how do you intend to make sure that our legal system is not taxed by the influx of "enemy combatants" who would be granted representation by your closing of Guantanamo?
It's this expectation of greatness that I can't stand. Why would he be a great President? Because he's got one of the most liberal records (short as it is) in Congress? Because he's a "first?" Because he can say something inane without sounding like a total moron? Because he makes people faint?
Where is the Democrat who will look at this Barack Obama and say, "Sir, you are no Jack Kennedy?" It is my opinion that being compared to Kennedy is no great honor, but liberals seem to like him. And at least he spent 14 years in Congress before being elected. Obama is, at this point in his career, just a pretty face with a nice voice and some good speech writers. When you get past the cult of personality surrounding the man, you realize that his politics are pretty scary if you don't live in Europe and would damage our ability to defend ourselves from a terrorist attack. Of course, if one of those should occur who do you think would be blamed? Not the sitting president, no way! Not the Congress...why, it must have been President Monkey-face McStoopid the War Monger and his policies that made those nice Muslims mad enough to attack us again.
He's not qualified for the job, and I question the commitment to rational thought of anyone who seriously believes that he is.
Comments
From what point of view are you asking the question?
You said at the top, "From what I've seen of him, he's got nothing to recommend him for the presidency and his whole campaign has been based on indistinct notions of "hope" and "change" that really don't mean anything."
That sounds like you are framing the question rhetorically so that there is no possible answer. If an Obama supporter (and I am not one) were to make a suggestion, wouldn't you already have dismissed it as "indistinct" or meaningless, or part of a personality cult? What would you consider a valid kind of answer?
My sons (in various election years) used to open up the fridge and whine, "Why don't we ever have anything to eat?" When it was pointed out that the fridge was full of good food and good ingredients, the kids would whine again, "That's not food. Where's the pizza?"
Politics is an exercise in communication, not an exercise in denying the validity of what all the other citizens in the nation have to say.
There may not be! But I am asking because I'm not sure a reasonable defense can be offered for any contemporary liberal policy without revealing the socialist and fascist roots of said policy. It is my opinion that glossing over these unsavory bits with personal charm and empty talk of change is a good way to doge serious criticism.
My only correction to that statement would be to substitute "debate" for politics. To my mind, politics is a dirty business of concealment and expediency. Bullshit, in other words. And the only way to get anything done, unfortunately, is to play that game of politics. One group's interests take precedence over another's, and anyone who claims otherwise is not to be taken seriously. Except Barack Obama. There are serious ideological differences in this country and Obama is trying very hard to appear centrist when he is at the far left end of our political spectrum. That's BS, in my view.
There seems to be a meme that because someone is inspiring, there has to be no substance.
This is an old prejudice. It is practically a cliche to presume that one perfects style at the expense of substance. Obama is exhibit A as to why it is bunk.
I dare say, no matter how many times anyone points it out, until Obama drones on about policy specifics to the point where no one can ignore the fact that he has specifics (and knows them), many will still assume that one who soars in language is not staying focused on issues.
This is simply superficial decision making, what social scientists might call peripheral processing. I would wager that many of those who reiterate Obama is all hat and no cattle, as Hillary and McCain are encouraging, actually don't know much about their policy positions either.
Go to his website and look at the policy specifics. YOU may hate his solutions, but to say he has none is ignorant at best.There's one salient reason why I and many other people-- especially the young who have only known Bush and Clinton-- are supporting Obama and that's because we feel that Obama will finally show us what it means to be proud of our president.
(I assume Chait's "winging it" comment refers to McCain's non-foreign policy credentials. On domestic policy all i've seen from him is a promise to make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent.)
John
Not at all. Ronald Reagan's ideas were ridiculed and his style criticized, but now even Obama is making positive-seeming comments about the man. The Reagan thing was pointed out to me by someone else, but I think the key difference here is that Reagan and Obama are worlds apart when it comes to actual experience.
There is absolutely no getting around Obama's lack of substantive accomplishments. He's a freshman senator who declared his intentions to run in the first year of his term. He's running on charm and audacity and that's less than adequate. He doesn't have the political clout to deal with a Putin or Kim. That same hope and change he is talking about is only going to make him an easy target for an opportunistic foreign leader with no scruples about pushing his own national interest ahead of America's.
Carter.
By default, sir. He is my next to last pick. I am hoping that he will perhaps find the race too taxing on his aged frame and retire, paving the way for a resurgence for Mitt Romney or someone else to come through at a convention. That will probably not happen, so I'm left backing my almost-least-favorite.
I don't like McCain's deviations from conservative thought. I don't like his policies on immigration and I don't like his personality when addressing the concerns of the conservative base. I tend to think he would be preferable to Obama or Clinton for the simple fact that he is not likely to attempt any radical departure from our current foreign policies and most likely will not have the muscle to push forward his liberal ideas.
Ultimately all we can really judge these people in politics by is their records. Obama is an unknown and what little we have seen of him is not encouraging to me.Said the guy that voted for George W. Bush.
And the "Carter" comment-- what does that mean? Jimmy Carter has nothing to do with anything.As opposed to John Kerry? Can you really blame me?
And I believe that same current President came to the presidency with zero foreign policy experience and after governing a southern state. Kinda like Jimmy Carter.
Besides-- you were ready to pull the lever for Mitt Romney. What were his foreign policy credentials again? And he was a one term what from Massachusetts?
Now all of a sudden you're worried how long someone's been in public office?
Sorry-- I don't buy it.
Obama's TV spots, which ran before the Arizona primary, were vague as they were up beat. But members of the Democratic Party are not new to me and they usually want more of the taxpayers’ money so that they may transfer it to others. Of course after 8 years of G W Bush the distinctions between the two parties are becoming blurry- or is it just my astigmatism?
Not all of a sudden. If I went by that then I'd want John Warner or Ted Kennedy going for the spot. It's Obama's lack of real experience as opposed to even Hillary Clinton that has me puzzled. Is the public mood so reactionary that the electorate is willing to put a man in the Oval Office who has nothing close to a distinguished career in national or state politics?
The thing about governors versus Senators is the executive experience they get. A senator would have more experience with foreign policy, but governors also go on trade missions and the like. Carter at least had that. Obama's got nothing like it. His time in the Senate has been mostly spent running for President. Before that he was a state senator and before that a "community organizer." Pretty lame when we're talking about being POTUS.
Romney? Not my first choice either. But he was solid economically, talked the talk on social issues and immigration, and had some charisma.
President Bush was an extremely well-connected governor. Father a former President and director of the CIA. Numerous contacts in the business world and in foreign countries. Eminently better resume than Obama. I defy you to contrast the records of Bush in 1999 with Obama in 2008 and say Obama comes out ahead.
Not arguing for the legacy of Bush. Arguing against the notion that Obama is remotely qualified for the same job.
You can also certainly allow a power like Russia, Iran, North Korea, China or...Scotland to have their way. You may yield your interest to theirs or you may hitch your wagon to America which at least pretends to care about you. We're belligerent softies.
Be sure to study the American meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" as opposed to the British ones, when evaluating the views of the candidates. I understand you folks have a different concept of the terms. Watching the Prime Minister's Q&A with the House of Commons, I would gather that your Conservatives are opposed to the war in Iraq. Not the case in America.
Thanks for stopping by!
"George W. Bush is LBJ with a human face." -- Zak Klemmer (2004)
I'm sad about this also.
There is something to be said about not being in the political arena to long. The longer people are involved in a certain area then the more they start thinking they know everything there is to know about it, they become arrogant in their knowledge refusing to even consider other possibilities. Also lets not forget the political buddy system which so far hasnt helped us americans at all, its hurt us more often then not.
Rather a blanket statement, isn't it? Are there not conservatives and conservative values that say Don't fight a stupid war, Don't run up astronomical deficits, Don't lean in the direction of corrupt handouts to corporate friends, Don't trash the Constitution, Don't grant nearly unlimited power to one office in govt?
What about those conservatives?
I don't like Clinton either, but she's more likely to achieve what I think is important for the public good, politically speaking.
By the way, we are both representatives of our respective countries. I don't know any English people and so you're about the best I've got.
It wasn't always so. When England was a major power it certainly understood the ideas we're discussing.
We didn't even know if they'd work. And quite frankly when we're talking about war the lives of our own people were of more value than those of Japanese citizens. It was estimated that there would be at least a million US deaths (deaths! Not casualties.) if we invaded mainland Japan. Not counting how many Japanese would have died (many more, I assure you.) Two bombs ended the war and I don't think it's fair to accuse America of being a rogue nuclear state. It's not a nuanced statement.
Not really. We don't have Atomic Bomb Day or anything.
Nobody forgets that here because we're not allowed by our progressive movement to ever forget anything bad that America does. We are prone to forget just how much good we've done, though. Nobody talks much about that.
There's plenty Great about Britain, but socialized medicine isn't on the list. Let's not pick at each other's country.
If I sounded flippant in my last post, then I apologize. I am a bit flippant and don't like to get bogged down in overly serious discussion on the Internet. I try to keep the mood casual while we play politics.
I believe the current republic to have been adopted on September 17, 1787, which makes us about 220 years old. As for wiping out indigenous cultures, let me just say Australia, Canada, India, the Cape Colony, the Congo, Egypt, Jamaica, Belize, Singapore...
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
You really should read your Kipling.
And the only thing super about England is its cooking...
John
And this differs from most politicians how?
I'll take Clinton's damage over Reagan's treason any day of the week.
That only works to a point - and never works if spending increases faster than the revenue increases.
And people who use stereotypes appear to be neither.
John
When we're discussing things that matter, that really really matter, points and concession to those points are important. You cannot say that America bombed innocent people in Japan on a whim. You must make a contextual statement.
While you are personally opposed to war, your country has a record that we in America have yet to match. This is an unsavory truth. We're lucky we beat you 225 years ago.
It seems that you are arguing from a perspective that all war is bad. Is this accurate?
America did not beat me 225 years ago. I was not even born then. Yes, all War in my opinion is bad and War is not a political tool either. Politics should be about Intelligence and Policy and Ideals and War is just Bloodshed, War is just evil, War is just people killing people. War is just brutal loss of life and it is the most absurd event that takes place on this planet. War is destructive, War is pointless and War has to stop.
The original meaning of totalitarian, as promoted by Mussolini, was a "society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens." The total need of the people rested with the state. Think universal health care, 8 hour workdays, votes for women, government subsidies for farmers. Modernity over tradition, expediency over morality, the state over the individual. Fascism.
[totally objective comment free from emotion] - hi 5 scio
You aren't being realistic. Politics has never, ever been about intelligence or policy or ideals all by themselves. Anyone who told you that was selling something. War isn't always evil. Sometimes war prevents much greater evil from taking place.
If we lay down all our weapons today and said "No more war," do you know what would happen? Not only would a country like Iran or North Korea immediately being mobilizing, but within our own countries there would be tremendous civil unrest. You will never convince everyone that War is Wrong, because you will never ever achieve a utopia in which we all desire peace. War is profitable and unscrupulous nations would take advantage of our hypothetical pacifism.
Peace can only be maintained through vigilance and force of arms.
Also, would you please claim your heritage as an Englishman? It's ok to speak in the collective sense about your history. That's what I mean when I say "you" or "we" because I'm willing to accept my nationality and my history. It's the only way to understand the situation in which we find ourselves today.
That's precisely my point. In the West, we have a tradition, promoted in large part by you English, of common law and accountability to the common people. Today we see this effort to downplay that aspect of Western civilization, in large part because of concerted efforts by leftist intelligentsia to promote ideas like socialism and fascism. Those systems fly in the face of a true government "of the people" because it makes the state the supreme arbiter of our lives instead of God or even ourselves.
Worse than that, though, is this philosophy of relativism that we see everywhere. One thing is as good as another depending on the person. So with that position, it's very nearly impossible to argue against socialism or totalitarianism because we deny that one system is better or worse than any other. It's all very frustrating.
Excellent article on Totalitarianism, I think that we have creeping totalitarianism in America, think of it this way: after every election politicians promise to do more for us because we are incapable of living with out them. We get more regulations, the tax burden increases and they are always fighting a war on: demon rum, marijuana, gambling, cancer, crime, the boogeyman, aliens, poverty, and name your foreign cause/ dictator. To top all this off we have an escalation on penalties and jail time for what were once considered minor offenses. I remember when Americans were freer and knew how to mind their own business.
Can you point out any war, at any time, that didn't kill innocents? As Scio, Scio has already pointed out, using the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives on both sides of the conflict than they took. Go read the plans for Operation Downfall with their estimates of 1 million Japanese civilian casualties, and then tell me if dropping the bomb was immoral. Be prepared to justify your answer; after all, you keep bringing it up, so the burden of proof is on you.
Nope. Iran only goes back to 1979, and Iraq only goes back to 1920 when the British declared it to be a country (in other words, the current war is all your fault).
From statements such as:
You are clearly trying to claim the high ground by accusing America of using WOMD - despite the fact that the first WOMD used in battle were invented by the British! (And then you accuse me of not knowing history. Funny that.)
Hey, you brought it up. Don't blame me for pointing out that it wasn't an American invention.
Let's get a few things straight, shall we? First, the decision to drop the bomb was made by the US President, not the military; we have a civilian-controlled military over on this side of the pond. Harry S. Truman decided to drop the bomb, for which I bless him. Second, the total casualties for both bombs were 199,000, not millions. If you are going to accuse us, at least get your facts straight. Finally, unlike Dresden (bombed at the insistence of the British PM), both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were clearly military targets.
Hiroshima was the headquarters of both the Fifth Army and the defense forces for all of Southern Japan (the most likely landing place for an invasion). Nagasaki was a large port that played host to the Japanese navy and produced much of the munitions and ships used in the war effort. Both were exactly the sort of target that had been attacked many times before and were well within the rules of war. The only difference is that this time, the bomb that was dropped was much stronger than any used before.
Try following the link; it leads to one of Kipling's most moving elegiacs, detailing the decline and fall of the British Empire.
If you wish to use synedoche by blaming me for the actions of the US President before I was born, then I reserve the right to do so to you. Every thing that you accuse the US of can also be laid at the feet of the British; frequently with higher frequencies and greater death totals.
More than you are, apparently.
John
I am wondering though - do you really feel that giving women the franchise is fascist?
John
You are welcome to try. However, given the level of your discourse thus far, it is doubtful that you would manage it.
True - you should remember that most limits have two sides.
John
If this is what gets your blessing then you are one sick human, extremely sick.
but I am sure you will not mind scio - a blessing according to john
If you do have children - Would you sacrifice them, to save the lives of a 20 other children? Would you do that John, Will you do that?
The region of Iraq was historically known as Mesopotamia "between the rivers"). It was home to the world's first known civilization, the Sumerian culture, followed by the Akkadian Babylonian and Assyrian cultures, whose influence extended into neighboring regions as early as 5000BC. These civilizations produced some of the earliest writing and some of the first sciences, mathematics, laws and philosophies, of the world; hence its common epithet, the "Cradle of Civiliztion" - [you wont find that on the CIA website].
Argumentam ad hominem. Irrelevant, especially as you have no idea of the context of the photo.
I note you said that you would "step down and declare 'you win'" - and now you go back on it. And you still haven't refuted a single point I've made.
This from the person who came in shouting "You are all boors and evil people, Americans!"? Go look in a mirror.
Didn't say that. My words (and yours) should speak for themselves.
I'll live my life, you live yours. I'll continue telling people such as yourself that they should remember their own history as told by one of their most influential poets, as appropriate.
If you are given the choice "One must die or 20; you have no other choices" - how would you decide? As noted before there were no good choices, only bad and worse - which is pretty standard for war. Again, please tell me of any single war without civilian casualties? The best we can do is to minimize them, which dropping the atom bomb did (even if some would wish to deny that).
Odd, the same thing could be said about the Australian aborigines, who were subjected to a systematic genocide for the past 300 years by the British.
John
This is true and irrelevant. Go take a look at the borders of Mesopotamia, and you'll see that they bear no resemblance to the current Iraq. The people who live there are descended in part from the Mesopotamians, as am I. The current conflict isn't about that ancient feud, but another one entirely.
Er, no. It is home to the first known agrarian, literate society, not the first known civilization. Try doing your research a bit more thoroughly, won't you?
John"Let's see - you haven't managed to factually refute any of my points" - I think I have John, I am sure of it.
"You haven't managed to state a self-consistent argument". I was not aware i was involved in an argument and I still do not consider I am in an argument.
You quote me as saying > "You are all boors and evil people, Americans!"? Go look in a mirror - Where did you find that John?
I shall ask again - look at the first photo in my library and have a good look at the child that the rules of War deemed a legitimate target for their Atom Bomb. Then please tell me what that beautiful little girl did to be deemed guilty and you tell me why she does not look too happy in that photo.
"the total casualties for both bombs were 199,000, not millions." The figure you claim is not accurate at all - The more realistic figures for those killed within a week of the bomb range around 500,000 and many more died in the following months and continued to do so for many years. Those deaths are never put into the equation and neither are all the slaves in that region in the equation and neither are all those who can not be accounted for as there was no record of their existence in the first place. They are always denied. Just like the Nazis denied the number of Jews that were slaughtered. The Nazis even denied the Concentration camps existed but we all they did. The effect of the nuclear radiation has affected generations with babies being born deformed and many illnesses caused premature deaths and are without doubt a direct result of the bombs dropped in the name of war. The number is more likely to well over a million. Some claim there was only 60,000 deaths, that's about as many people that you can fit in Wembley Stadium and there is no way that's accurate either.
Your defence of the wrongs of America by re-directing our attention to what wrongs other nations have similarly done, does nothing to erase the wrongs of the American powers. It just adds weight to the fact that all Powers around the World abuse their power and they abuse humans. If you think you are attacking me by attacking England then think again. I would not defend England's history. Some of the things that the English have done throughout history are just sick and I detest all such events and deplore it. Nor would I defend anything in a school playground manner by saying - 'yeah well, they did the same thing but worse so that's excused' - it is not excused.So John, if you do have children, get them in the Car. Take them to an American Military Base and ask the officials to take your children as a sacrifice. Ask them to murder your children and do a deal where they agree not to kill 10 foreign civilians in the current war zone. That way, you can save lives and someone else somewhere can say that was a blessing because others lived.
As for my Moral standpoint, I do not believe in high or low ground. I do not even feel I have suggested any morals. I have opinions which I form using my own thoughts and feelings and I do not borrow them from books. As for do I feel superior. NO, I do not. I would like to be considered equal to others. Regardless of intelligence or position in society, regardless of my skin colour and regardless of the co-ordinates of my birth place. I am not important at all in the scheme of things and I never will be. I am not trying to win an argument, I do not even want to argue. I just like to discuss issues with others as that is a good way to learn about life and other peoples opinions. I may not agree with them but I do get to hear them and I have no agenda or point to prove.
So, thats some loose ends tied up [all i have time for now] I will leave you in peace to take your children off to be slaughtered.
So let's have no talk of slaughtering children. It's a touch overblown.
Wow. This post was about Obama. I popped back in hoping to see what your commenters had to say about Obama. And now people are asking other people to murder their children?
I didn't read through all of it, it's too much. Do your posts usually generate this much madness? I don't always agree with John or Scio, Scio, but in general I think a certain decorum needs to be reinstated?
Apathy is not present here. The "tired" comment was made after reading the whole 68 comments on the thread and trying to follow them. Hard to do when we're hardly even discussing the original point of the post anymore. That sounds like the opposite of apathy.
He should bother, but he should take his time and make his comments count. That was my point. We're having a very interesting discussion here, to which you might also contribute provided we avoid histrionics.
I don't even know how we got to this point, but as usual when talking to Europeans we've ended up defending America for defending them. Oh now I've remembered. I insinuated that Obama was a foreign policy lightweight who would be seriously outmatched by men in other countries who know the rules of international politics. Karlos took issue with the idea that politics exists as I stated, and made some statements that were critical of America.
We could use some focus here, GB. Care to make a comment to get us back on track?
Well quoted!
John
See above.
No, I said that Iraq as a country only goes back to 1920, which is true. The history of the region does go further back, but that is true everywhere.
That's not splitting hairs, that's remembering history. Until 1920, there was no Iraq. There was an Ottoman Empire, and before that was a Caliphate, and before that were a morass of other groups. But Iraq only became a country in 1920, thanks to the decision of the British.
Tell that to the Irish. There is a difference between geography and politics; it isn't even particularly subtle.
Then trot them out, why don't you? You keep bringing up irrelevant points and moral umbrage, but have yet to show where the facts were not on my side.
It appears that you need a dictionary as well as a book of Kipling... "Argument (n) 3(b) a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" - from Merriam Webster's
Go look at your first few messages. The quote was indirect ("another's ideas presented in one's own words"), but based on your statements.
You simply don't get it, do you? I'll put it simply - can you provide any alternative that would have been less awful than dropping the atom bomb? Dropping the bomb forced the Japanese military to admit that no victory was possible, and so they surrendered despite their program to continue the war using women, children and other civilians. Can you find any means of ending the Second World War that does not entail at least as much suffering as was created by those two bombs?
I suggest you start by acquainting yourself with a bit of history. During WWII, the Japanese were far from innocent. Try reading the accounts of the survivors of the Rape of Nanjing, Japanese experiments with biological and chemical warfare on civilians, the Bataan Death March, and the POWs under the "care" of the Japanese.
Now acquaint yourself with the choices that we faced. We could allow Japan to continue its aggression and crimes against civilians. (Stack the 20 million dead in Nanjing against the 200,000 dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see which way the balance tips.) We could have blockaded Japan until they surrendered. We could have gone in with a conventional invasion force (indeed, one plan had been drawn up with Patton in charge). We could have continued carpet-bombing the cities. Or we could have (and did) dropped the atomic bomb. Which choice would you make? In all of them, children die. Dropping the bomb simply killed the fewest. Can you come up with a solution that kills fewer children and civilians?
Unless you can, you are arguing for more pain and terror and killed children. Which, in my book, makes you the monster.
Prove it - who else (besides you) thinks that? Most anthropologists in my acquaintance do not - and I've worked with the folks who detailed Chaco Canyon. Sure Mesopotamia (4,000 BCE) is old, but compared to the Jomon (10,000 BCE) it is a mere puppy. And then there are the Neanderthals (100,000 BCE)...
Where do you get your numbers from? Mine are from the folks who studied this after the war in order to understand just how bad an atomic war would be, and are supported by peer-reviewed literature. Yours appear to be pulled out of the air in order to make a point.
You really need to do your research; the number of mutations following the war and in the second generation (which is the one most affected by this particular fallout) was surprisingly low.
Not my intention; America has made mistakes and we are learning from them (well, some of us, anyway). I'm merely pointing out the beam in your eye, while you shout about the mote in mine.
Tell you what - go live without civilization for awhile, and then come back and tell me how much fun anarchy is. In the words of Churchill "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Never said it was excused, merely that it is pretty darn funny that someone from a country with a background as bad as England's should chastise Americans for our transgressions.
John
John
Here's the extent of how much I've educated myself about Obama -- I read his book; studied his campaign website; watched five debates; watched him on Meet The Press a couple times. And based on that, I've decided to support him for president.
I know that you've fully committed yourself to the belief that national security can only be achieved by killing fundamentalists and militarily intimidating Islam.
Given that this is the case, I can see how Obama's appeal is lost on you.
Many Americans have decided now to disagree with you. It's not about them aligning with "the left." It's about recognizing that America can't win a war of ideas with our military. It's about acknowledging that America's position in the world has been knocked down a few pegs, and our position in the world matters. And it's about acknowledging that what's wrong with Washington is partisan combat and division.
I understand that you're not a John McCain fan, but you should be. You and he are two of the only people left who haven't judged that the Arab would hates us because our military is in their lands.
I'm not saying we shouldn't support Israel, or that we should attack dictators. I'm saying that we're fools if we believe that we can kill our way to national security.
Love,
Educated Fool
John
We just want you to like us! That's why we solve all your problems and fight people for you. Also, pay the rent at the UN.
America does more to foster peace than any other country, because it takes an active role. We have more and we do more.
What you fail to grasp Eric is that the Radicals in Islam have become Totalitarians and would hate regardless and will vow to kill you until you submit to their way of life. What Bush has failed to grasp is that colonialism has its limits. How long were we in Germany after WWII ? And the Germans were closer to our culture then the nomadic Arabs.
I looked at McCain and Obama both indepth, Ii dont and wont consider anyone without fully researching them. I wasnt happy with either but when it came down to it, i just felt and still feel McCains views toward this war have more to do with his past experience then the current issues at hand.
I believe in a strong military and i believe that although we went into iraq at the wrong time and the wrong way that we are there so we have to accomplish what we set out to do. One of my biggest issues with McCain is it seems like he has no plan what to do after the surge is finished. Military force can only take us so far but like Gen. Petraeus implies it can not and will not bring peace by itself. Obama may not be my first pick or even my second or third but at least he seems to understand that our military is not peace emissaries. Im skeptical about his plan to pull the majority of troops out of iraq and redeploy them in Afghanistan and only leave a few within iraq to target specific sites, while we work on peace in Iraq threw diplomatic channels, but id rather support that then someone who wants a full complete pullout in the middle east, or someone who supports our military presence but has no plan what to do next.
As for Scio's specific charges against Obama (what few there were that were specific) Obama's plan on Guantanamo isnt my favorite to be sure, but the sad reality is that Guantanamo and prisons like it are already taxing our legal system, we face lawsuit after lawsuit over the legality of it even being open. Personally i think we need prisons like that and care little about how well those prisoners are being treated, but leaving them open isnt any better or worse on our legal system then what we are already facing. If you had brought up our security by having those prisoners within our own borders then you would of had a valid argument and one that i also have an issue with when it comes to Obama.
You mention Obama's experience, considering the last 2 presidents experience really doesnt mean anything.
You mention taxes, Obama's plan is far from perfect, ive never liked the ideal of taking someone elses money because they have more and giving it to people just because they have less. Seems unfair to me, but then i look at Hillarys plan which is even worse, and then i look at McCains plan which solves nothing of the overall problems many americans are facing. I agree with the economic stimulus package, but its not enough at least for americans, It will probably bring about the economic stimulus thats needed, but what does it do for the average american working family?
Obama's plan will help middle income americans, and whether people recognize the fact or not, right now they are the ones that are hurting the most. The rich are not hurting, the poor already have government programs to help them. The middle class are left out in the cold.
Securing all loose nuclear material, honestly i havent paid much attention to that, i dont believe anyone is capable of doing that, but on the flip chance someone can, what is McCains plan to do that, what is Hillarys plan to do that? Can either of them guarantee their plans will work, i dont believe so, thats one of those things where they can say .... we are going to try this... and thats the best they have to offer, which is no different then what Obama is saying.
Back to our security for a minute, Obama never says he cares whether we insults our neighborhood terrorists or not, considering his comments on Pakistan i doubt he does really care what the terrorist think or anyone that supports them for that matter, if anything his views on countries that harbor terrorists is a stronger stand then any of the candidates. Our president has to be tough but also be able to be diplomatic. McCains tough at least on Iraq but i havent seen that toughness directed anywhere else, Hillarys a piece of fluff whos more interested in making friends then making sure our country is safe.
You mention fighting when the enemy uses cell phones and email, dont forget websites. Do you honestly believe that monitoring those sources make us any safer. Look at email, any good hacker worth his salt can fool anyone monitoring the internet and more often then not do. Certain cell phones still to this day with all of our technology cant be fully monitored, because there is no single network. We can monitor what goes on within the US to a certain extent but the largest threat to our security is outside of our own borders, the main goal should be to stop them before the get in our borders, not wait till they get here then try to take them out. McCain, Obama and Hillary all fail miserably on that point, not a one of them is better then the other when it comes to that.
Obama can be a better President then the rest because he has the ability to mix military strength with diplomacy. He isnt afraid to offend countries that harbor terrorists, he recognizes that tax cuts alone cant solve the financial difficulties that many americans are facing. He understands that a health care plan fully funded by the government is going to cause a fiscal crisis yet that many americans are facing extreme difficulties and need help but that it has to be a mix of government involvement and consumerism. He wont back down like Hillary and he wont base his military strategy on personal demons like McCain.
So to bring it all down, some of Obama's ideals bite, they really bite, but McCain and Hillarys plans bites even more.
On a more personal level,
I dont mean this as an insult to anyone elderly although im sure some will take that way but McCain is elderly, and whether the elderly in this country like to admit it or not your age effects your physical fitness and your mental capabilities. The older McCain gets the harder its going to be for him to keep up in both of those areas.
Hillary on the other hand is a whole different problem. The problem with her is going to be respect. Id like to think most Americans are modern enough where they know a woman can be just as capable as any man. The problem isnt going to be Americans though, the problem is going to be leaders of other countries especially countries where woman still have no rights, where woman are still considered little more then property. If she were a different woman, it might be possible, but with the skeletons in her closet because of her husband, her constant inane blubbering on the media, her constant back tracking when things get difficult, and her emotional responses, she is not the woman that can accomplish modernizing world thinking when it comes to woman. She will be seen as a weakness and it will reflect on our country.
So we're faced with McCain, who may preserve the status quo with a slightly leftward lean, and Obama...who will without a doubt take this country down the same tired liberal paths. We've seen time and again where those lead.
Obama is a lightweight, sound byte candidate. His slim record in the Senate has already put him in the far left category. Do we really want a man like him in office when we have foreign leaders like Putin, Kim Jong Il and the Saudis out there? He'll be completely outclassed, but I guess we can take comfort from knowing how nice he was about it.
Scio, I don't have specific examples of Obama's legislative accomplishments beyond his attempts at lobbying reform. I like that he hasn't accepted lobbyist money for his presidential campaign (the only candidate not to do so). He's expressed a powerful grasp of issues in the debates. I have examples of his judgment and character outside the world of legislation that have impressed me enough. And I've never heard him say anything remotely socialist, except if you consider mainstream concepts like progressive taxation socialist or setting up mulit-state insurance markets socialist.
If you think he's too general, here's his 64-page policy document. It took me about 10 seconds to find it:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
George Will had a great point in the Washington Post yesterday -- The best qualified candidate for president in American history was probably James Buchanan, one of our worst presidents. His successor was a one-term Congressman from Illinois who now appears on the five-dollar bill.
Well! If Obama is another Lincoln then that settles the matter. By gum, I had no idea that Obama shared the same qualities as Lincoln to such an extent. His utter lack of meaningful Senate action is thusly excused.
And you have not addressed the more meaningful criticisms of Obama, that his stated goals for foreign policy leave him wide open for exploitation by men who are willing to play the game. Sit down with Iran without preconditions? Folly. It's that kind of idealistic nonsense that gets America into trouble.
America's policy towards Cuba has been to blockade and shut down official relations. For 50 years. How's that worked out for us?
Our foreign policy is a failure. Our influence in the world has never been weaker. The populations of almost every country in the world dislike us now. Hardly a single world leader wants to be seen cooperating with us. And our military readiness has been decimated.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Time to change strategy.
There's a lot of stuff "right here"; that you cannot point to anything specific leads me to suspect that you have nothing to point at. As far as double standards - I'm the one pointing out that America has done nothing that other folks haven't done before - how, pray tell, is that a double standard? And as for selfish and arrogant - go look in a mirror, bub.
John
When I see a politician I see someone who uses pollsters to learn how to manipulate public opinion. Someone who is insincere and looks to the office as a vehicle to advance in society because either they believe that they can't make it in private for-profit business, or they desire fame or just want power over their fellow citizens. Clinton and Obama are playing the class warfare card again. What a pity, this lowers politics to the lowest common denominator and breeds envy and contempt, envy and insincerity mankind’s most destructive vices.
I have already stated that I can find no better solution than the one used. Unless you can find a better solution, then you are the one with the double standard. Tell us - how would you have ended the Japanese conflict?
That is a double standard! If I can't tell you what to do, then you can't tell me what to do. "Sauce for the goose", as Dickens would say.
John
This reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode: "To Serve Man" - language is always a double edge sword. George Washington set the standard for America, which has been debased in the last 200 years. Today I think that the public expects government to do what they should be doing for themselves. The class warfare strategy is all the Democrats have to offer besides vague promises of "Change".
But back to the Twilight Zone- go get a copy of "On Thursday We Leave for Home." It's a classic.
for more info on just what Obama has did here is a good place to start, its legislative bills and resolutions that he has personally sponsored and the results.
That solution was tried at the beginning of World War II - look under Chamberlain, Neville. It was notably unsuccessful.
Strange, except for the use of the atomic bomb, that's exactly what the Japanese did in Najing. And, except for the use of the atomic bomb, that's exactly what the Japanese did in Korea. And so forth...
The simple truth is that the Japanese, not the US, started the war. With that in minf, can you find a way to stop the Japanese that doesn't involve the deaths of innocents on Japanese soil? (And where is your condemnation of the Japanese actions? Why are they the only victims here? Your double standard is showing again!)
How will you get the Japanese military to listen to your talk? How will you end the conflict? Thus far, you've given vague answers (of proven uselessness). Can you do any better? Or are you too wrapped up in your world of denial to look at the real world for a while?
I think that President Truman's decision was a blessing to America, to Japan, and to all the countries involved in the war, given the choices that they had. As I have already said, it was the least awful thing that he could have done. Your answer shows that you paid no attention to history (or you would have known about Prime Minister Chamberlain's futile attempts). So, no, you aren't idealistic - just ignorant.
Now that you know that your proposed solution failed, what will you do?
John
It doesn't matter whether the bombs were nuclear or not- people are still dead, this did end the war and saved the lives of many others. Did it matter whether Poles were killed my Russians or Germans? Or a Jap soldier raped a Chinese woman or a Russian soldier raped a Polish woman? The fact remains that the Germans and the Russians, i.e., Hitler and Stalin made a plan to invade Poland in 1939 which stated WWII and Imperial Japan invaded China and much of Asia. The twentieth century was bloody and cruel as is most of human history. Millions of human beings died, and they died before the atomic era.
No, I'm saying that because that other country killed millions even after we had nicely asked them not to do so, we were morally justified in using any force necessary to stop it. The closest analogy is the use of deadly force to stop a sniper.
Yes, it does. We didn't start the killing, we stopped it. There is an unsubtle moral difference between the two.No, realistic. Those Japanese actions are not irrelevant; they were one of the root causes of the conflict. I would suggest you go to the folks in Korea or Nanjing and ask them if our use of the atomic bomb was morally justifiable after Japan's genocides. Be prepared to duck if you say it wasn't.
So it's bigger and better than yours. Not unusual.
You have yet to come up with a better solution that would have worked. Your only suggestion thus far had been tried and had not worked. Thus, the solution they used was the least awful. I do not deny the effect on the civilians; I merely note how much worse the alternatives were. In other words, I think about the siutuation. This does not make me stupid, nor sick - merely willing to understand that there are times when there are no good solutions.
BTW - there is a difference between ignorant ("lacking knowledge") and stupid ("unwilling to think"). Thus far, I have given you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you merely lacked the necessary information. You seem intent on making me change my mind.
Demonstrably not true. I suggest you review the past few decades, paying special attention to the results of WTO rulings. We have frequently been thwarted in our desires. Unlike the British, the Germans, or darn near any other empire that came before, we have allowed the needs of others to outweigh ours. (I suspect that this is why you hate us so much - you know that, in our place, you would not have behaved as well. The alcoholic despises no one so much as the person who can take a drink now and then without becoming drunk.)
Tell you what: the next time someone holds you up, the next time someone tries to burn down your house, the next time someone tries to kill you for the sin of being "different" - remember to curse the policeman for using deadly force to stop the nice man with the gun, OK?
John
Or let's put it in a more personal context. There's a madman on your block, and he has taken an apartment building with 500 residents hostage. He will set off an bomb that will disperse anthrax into the London Underground system, killing at least 100,000 people, unless you take 100 people at random from the crowd and kill them. Every minute that you delay, he takes one of the people from the apartment building and throws them off the top of the roof, killing them. Because of the way he has things set up, you know that killing the 100 will stop him. What will you do? You can talk to him, but that will kill an innocent person every minute. You can bomb the building, but that will kill the 500 innocent people. You can do nothing, but that kills the 500 and the 100,000. Or you can kill the 100 random people. What will you do?
John
John
As to this post, I believe I'm going to shut it down. What has become clear to me is that support for Obama is often associated with a desire for leftward change on the scale of European socialism.
I am pissed off. Not only did this post make it to the front page, but it attracted some people who have seriously considered the issue I raised in the post. We've spent three days defending America against outsiders and morons. Their deep resentment of American success is what drives their anti-American rhetoric, and they may take it to Hell with them.
To the Americans on this blog, I would close this post with this, from Stephen Decatur (originally proposed in Norfolk, my city):
And that applies even if our President is Obama.
2. You ask why not Hillary? All her experience. I'll point back to his record and say that in is 8 years as an elected official he has gotten more people to do more things than she has in her 6. In the white house her greatest accomplishment was creating enmity that kept us from getting universal health care 10-12 years ago when it should have been easier given the surplus. She doesn't bring people on board. When things don't go her way .... look at how she is behaving during the campaign. Tantrums....all sweetness in a debate and then yelling the next day about small stuff; allowing her campaign managers to do and say things she then has to go back and backpedal from. If she can't run her campaign, or pick people to do it well, how would she run the country? Now look at the well run organization Obama has. And how he conducts himself. Look at how he reacts when hit with the ridiculous propaganda straws they are grasping at. He responds strongly but doesn't flail about. And then he gets us back to the real conversation. You know, I'm glad that if Hillary becomes president that she doesn't want to talk directly to foreign leaders. She's not suited to diplomacy. He is.
3. Nukes. That is a matter of diplomacy too.
4. Wire tapping. Allowing wiretapping isn't the issue. The gov't could wiretap legally now. They just have to go through the proper channels of getting the wiretap warrants authorized. This is a legal part of the checks and balances to protect our civil liberties. Don't tell me that if the president or CIA needs a wiretap THAT bad that it has to be now now now they can't get a judge to review it quickly. This speaks to the expansion of the Executive Office by declaration by the Executive Office and in some cases rubber-stamped (but not in this one!) by a cowed Congress or corrupted lapdog Judiciary. Both Dems are committed to rolling that back, but I believe Obama is a little more committed because he is less about personal power than Hillary.
5. I tried to find a logical response to your accusations that he is just a pretty face and voice, unqualified, but those are empty labels with no evidence behind them. Fluff, if you will. His record makes him as qualified as many presidents have been in the past, more than others (like GW). His nice voice has brought much action to bear (see #1). I've spoken to what makes him qualified...his record of accomplishment and his record of bringing people to the table that the other candidates don't have the ability to do at a time we need that more than anything, both domestically and abroad. So the challenge is back to you. What makes him UNqualified besides people throwing that label at him?
6. My cheap shot at you. The cigarette looks as cools as the cigarette my 15 year old "non smoker" nephew has hanging out of his mouth on his myspace page.
Please don't act like the English idiots we had on here a while back.
Will reply to rest later.
Yeah, was feeling piled on by the insanity of those commentators above.
So, later today, will be back to take it point by point.
he is honest, articulate, a uniter and above all; he has good judgement. he is also not entangled in the washington games (he doesn't owe lobbyiest any favors) unlike Hillary or even McCain.
For example, Obama supported the notion that an 11 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without notifying her parents. This is ludicrous! Even in an abusive situation, say that the mother's boyfriend or an uncle had committed the abuse, Child Services can step in to remove the child from the position. But Barack Obama would support that child's abortion without notifying anyone in a guardianship position. Slippery slope.
Articulate? Yes, he gives a nice speech. But he has yet to articulate just what qualifies him to be President beyond his "nice" ideas. And I feel he is disingenuous about his real political leanings, and has yet to articulate those.
A uniter? Hardly! In this time of increasing partisanship, it seems the American people have turned to someone short on credentials, long on talk, and mum on his real politics. Again, I stress his extremely leftward politics. He is not a uniter, he will only alienate the half of the country that is conservative to moderate.
His judgment is also questionable. Let us consider his lack of a record when determining his judgment. How many concrete examples of good judgment can we find? He married well, as M. Obama seems to be a good fit for him. He knew when he should capitalize on his popularity. But how many real examples of good judgment in leadership can we find? Too few.
He is of course entangled in the Washington games and is of course beholden to special interest. It just so happens that his particular interest is the far left political platform.
Electing a lightweight as POTUS will only exacerbate the profound difficulties in which our country finds itself. Obama is substantially deficient in experience. Whatever else you can say about him, he is not ready for the office.
The world is not that black and white. Being pro-choice is not an automatic abdication of appropriateness in application. There are people who believe that would be ok. There are far far more with a more centrist view on the rights of individuals to govern themselves. Few people believe that 11 year olds are not ready to govern themselves.
You are going on about his generalities, yet this is the only evidence you've offered. I challenge it's credibility.
You FEEL he is disingenuous. Why? In what way has he been less than clear and consistant that would give you that feeling? I mean, I can point to specific acts of Hillary's and McCain's that make me go...that...that behavior right there is a tell that this person isn't what they are trying to seem to be. Where's Obama's tell? He has been very clear and consistent about his agenda and 8 years as a legislator with consistency in his voting record, the bills he has written or supported, and the public stands he has taken are on the record; actions that anyone can look at and see exactly what he stands for. Consistently. You may not LIKE what he stands for but that doesn't make him disingenuous.
You don't like that he's pro-choice. OK. But he hasn't hidden, waffled or sidestepped the statements he's made in regards to it.
You may not like that he is willing to sit down with our enemy's. OK. Many of us disagree. But he's clear about that being where he is.
You may not like his closure of loopholes that allow millionaires to pay smaller percentages of their massive earnings than I do in taxes. But he's pretty clear about that being the general plan.
What's disingenuous? He's saying all sorts of things people don't like and standing by those statements.
I reiterate my challenge to find non generalizing, substantive evidence. I will paraphrase you....."you cannot say Obama is [fill in the generalization blank] on a whim. You must make a contextual statement." And I will add, supported by facts and examples.
Few people believe that 11 year olds ARE ready to govern themselves.
So he is unabashedly "progressive." Not a centrist by any means. The Green Party don't like him, but that still doesn't make him a centrist.
Votes by Senator Obama are the only thing we have to measure him.
That and the memories of his colleagues in the Illinois State Senate. This recent article paints a rather mixed picture of the Senator. Now it makes sure to employ the same deference to Obama that we see on recent episodes of Saturday Night Live, but at least it asks the question: Is he ready?
Obama may be a genuinely nice fella, with a clean record and only the best intentions. But he is not a centrist. He's not a uniter.
So you say. And Obama's numerous votes of "present" instead of a clear yes or no would indicate that he agrees with you. But the President operates in a world where decisive action is a necessity. He lives in a world where a Russian president is flexing the Old Bear's muscles. He lives in a world where an Iranian revolutionary talks about annihilating our allies in Israel. He lives in a world where South American dictators seek to undermine American influence regardless of who is in office. He can't vote present there.
Progressive is the new centrist. LOL. Nadar. THERE's a liberal for you. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that he mostly votes with his party. He is kind of the poster boy for Democratic Party Values. But at the same time, those values are mostly centrist which is why he's pulling Independents, Regan Democrats and many Republicans as well. Centrist values are values of people who are not at the far side of the political spectrum. Ideals both parties subscribe to right now...if you count the parties as the people, not the ideologues. The people are a Vin Diagram of values. The Ideologues have led us to an Us vs Them paradigm for too long and people are done with that. Most people want out of the war. Most people want health care coverage handled. Most people think the gov't has no business torturing people. Most people don't want the gov't wiretapping without warrants. Most people think we need a sustainable energy policy for multiple reasons: environmental impact, security, financial impact. Most people want to stop being lied to. These are centrist ideals now. The Republicans are only speaking to the far right. Obama (and Clinton) are speaking to the left and center, and when you consider the fact that the Republicans have devastated the economy, devastated our place in the international community, fiscal conservatives are not very happy with the Republican Party - and McCain is no solution to that. Conservatives who aren't basing their judgement on a desire for war and control of the abortion issues, and gay issues aren't too happy with the Republican party. Fiscal conservatives don't care about that. For years now the Republican Party has adopted these values to strengthen it's base, and the far right took over. Those are not the most important issues any more so the people who are not going to vote for whoever panders to those far right issues are moving towards Barack. And doing so with more ease than they would toward Clinton. And Centrists who once looked to McCain are looking away because he has changed his tune and people are finding out his is NOT so genuine, he'll say anything, and people are looking at his lack of economic background, support for the war, flip floppery worse than I've ever seen and realizing he's not viable. Summary.......the conservatives who are abandoning the Republican party, the independents making the choice to join someone who is more likely to meet their needs, and the centrists within the Democratic party - they are the bell weather. ...... Progressive is the new center.
Not the only. But the most concrete way to answer your questions about whether he puts his actions where his rhetoric is. That was the primary question posed when I had jumped into this conversation. Is he honest, genuine? I think the votes show that he his. Again, you may not LIKE his votes, but they do match his rhetoric.
But there is more to recommend him.
Measure the man by his ability to lead. the first and third articles point to his uncanny ability to bring people together. Not just crowds. In working situations with his fellow wizards. We need that.
We need the power of presidential mandate to tell congress to come back from the unprecedented amount of squabbling partisanship that has kept anything from getting done.
We need it when we negotiate with our enemies.
We need it to coax our allies back.
We need someone with good soft skills to renegotiate nafta, insurance, all of the the things that will require negotiation with the world and business.
Yeah...his colleagues remember him as someone who worked hard, negotiated and produced results. Not sure what deference you mean. I didn't notice any of the tone of "does he need a pillow" in the article. I think it was a pretty fair article pointing both to the unfortunate connection to Rezco (which is flimsy evidence against him, though I can see it as being discomforting) and his ability to be effective.
Your first article seems to say he is a uniter (but not a centrist). Your third article speaks to it. The ability to bring consensus into a divisive environment like the congress speaks to it.
OK. Well if you think the world is black and white then I understand your politics. You want someone to tell you what to do. This is good. This is bad. You don't have to worry about the consequences of any choice because each has a label all ready for you to hide behind and say...I followed the big red sign that says "goooood". That is the primary difference between the politics of the last 8 years and today. BW no longer has the ability to strong arm the Congress. People don't believe the lies told to control us. People want to talk about consequences of action becuase we have been faced, all too horribly with terrible consequences of a failed foreign policy. You don't go blindly invading a country you want to control without considering the consequences on the region. The might is right mindset, and the actions taken with that mindset has further destabilized a dangerously unstable region and brought us closer to wide spread danger than we have been since the Bay of Pigs. We have to stop and consider the actions we take, not panic and run out of a room in a riot because the president yelled fire.
But wait. Isn't making careful, minimalist changes the definition of conservative? Hmmmm..... But then why has the administration wasted trilions of dollars on a useless war that made the whole world hate us? Oh. Right. The conservatives don't run the party. The neo cons do. They are not really the same.
Environmental apples and oranges. In the State legislature that is common practice for a multiple of reasons.
In State legislature not voting when you could is basically a vote either against the bill without putting up a fuss and getting entangled in the kind of misconception politically that Kerry bungled explaining, as implied in the article; or a vote for the bill, but a statement that the exact language isn't good enough. If enough non votes are registered it's in indication that the bill has merit, but needs a rewrite and if it doesn't get enough votes to pass, it comes back rewritten. And there are other reasons I am not sure I understand as clearly as these 2. But read the article you sent, it kind of explains it.Before going on the campaign he voted in nearly every vote. (there is no vote of present in the Senate, only in the house so votes were yes or no). In 2007 all of the candidates missed a lot of votes. In the 110th congress he missed 11. Hillary missed 15. McCain missed 58.
Absolutely!!!! So we need someone who is paying attention. Someone with saavy. Someone who can negotiate. Someone with something besides a schoolyard bully mentality because that is not going to keep us safe, it's going to get the shit bombed out of us and at this point, no one in the world will left a finger to help us except Maybe the UK and Israel.
Our presidents with the best record of foreign affairs sat with our enemies and negotiated. And there was that untested guy who stared down the bear at the Bay of Pigs against the advice of those who had "been around". Until Bush dropped the ball on Foreign affairs we had our eye on what Putin was up to. Now, all of a sudden, we are surprised! Putin sized GW up for the chump he has proven himself to be and we had no strong voice of warning from the west. We spent our bombs, our service people, our money and our international good will on a fruitless war. We blasted the middle class and we are on the edge of a recession. I want someone able to tread the complicated negotiations to get us out of this mess, or at least keep us safe while we rebuild ourselves back to our former strength.
I gotta say Scio.... This was weak evidence. You can point to positions you don't like because they are left of yours (wherever you want to place them on the imaginary line from left to right), but you have not supported your claims that he is unfit or disingenuous.
All you've proven is that he votes like he talks, which is what the public wants to talk about even if you don't.
You've set up the argument he has no policies....people on this blog point to policies and you say...well that won't work. But you can't say why.
You say he isn't a uniter, doesn't have the ability to bring people together, yet he's proven he does...even his detractors acknowledge it...even the people you are citing in your own arguments.
So you pull out the "we need a decision maker". Well, Mr. I'm the Decider decided wrong. I'd like to listen to the guy who urged Mr. Decider to decide to pursue diplomacy. See those things go together. Negotiation, diplomacy, peace. Regan did it. it worked for us. JFK did it. Nixon did it. Hell, everyone did it except GW. And not all of them were as good at the talking thing as Obama. So what's your problem with someone who wants to drive a better bargain than we have now?
You claim he will lead to a fascist state but support Bush's claim that he has the right to spy on us without benefit of legal warrant...because he is above the law. This isn't an emotional argument. They are breaking the laws put into place to protect us from fascist type regimes. and that's just the easiest of evidences. They manipulated the evidence regarding the WMD's. They disregard the Geneva convention. We have no moral high ground in the world because of those kinds of fascist actions. We did not lead the FREE world because we were mighty. We were mighty because we had the moral high ground that comes with democracy and the freedom to choose to live within an ethical code. But we have, in the last 8 years, chosen safety over freedom, and handed our moral authority to an administration that squandered it. And MAN am I going on ..... point being..... thank god for 2 term limits because we have leaders who would be faciasts if they could get away with it in the Oval office now. To point that finger at Obama, without evidence of a tell, is irresponsible hyperbole.
All together I'm saying, the best you seem able to do is make unfounded accusations other than strong evidence that his political leanings are more liberal than yours. That's it. He's more liberal than you.
Not dangerous. Not unfit. Not a fascist. Not disingenuous. Not something other than what he seems (believe it or not...he seems more liberal than you....really! He IS more liberal than you!). Not unable to make decisions...his record on the big decisions stuff...better than most.
Is he St. Barack? No. But he really has a better chance, better skills, for dealing with the problems we are facing today than the alternatives. And people are all worked up because for the first time in a long time, we have not just a lesser of several evils...or several nothings....but someone of substance who brings possibilities that are palpable to the table.
I am not going to argue against the idea that the President has taken increasing liberties with his power. This has been the trend for more than a century. I will argue against the idea that somehow Barack Obama will reverse the steady progression of fascism in this country.
I would hesitantly remind you that in the two periods of time in this country when fascism was not only prominent, but preferred, there was a Democrat in office. Not just a Democrat, a self-identified Progressive. World Wars I and II saw unprecedented increases in Presidential authority. People were jailed just for speaking out against the first war. Have you known anyone who has been jailed for speaking against this conflict? Unless the Democrats have suddenly become the party of classical liberalism, you have a long way to go to convince me that theirs is the better way.
Sort of like making the trains run on time. Obama's nothing new when it comes to motivating crowds and cutting through red tape. To date, he has very few significant legislative accomplishments. I'd postulate that the perception of his effectiveness is inflated by his affability and pleasant rhetoric.
Uniting like-minded people is a bit underwhelming to me, I'm sorry. Illinois is a blue state, and the Republicans did not have an overwhelming Senate majority for Obama's first few years in office. He is not a uniter because he is not a centrist.
Ellie. You've reacted to the wrong part of the statement. My point about black and white is that even if you don't think the world operates in that way, there are ultimately two choices in foreign policy: right and wrong. Take the measure of our enemies and you'll see that they ridicule the notion of interdependent nations, mutual cooperation and multilateral decision-making. The world understands force of arms and force of argument. The strength of the United States is that we have the flexibility to employ modern diplomacy with people who are of a mind, and more traditional diplomacy with those who disagree.
I believe very strongly that there is an objective Truth, a right and wrong. That belief colors my perception of the world, politics, and of other people. Since I believe that we can come to an understanding of a situation that is both logically correct and morally right, I can say that in some instances black and white will suffice.
What about the consequences of inaction? I believe we saw those in New York, Bali, Madrid, London...or worse, the consequences of action in the wrong direction. Sending a signal of weakness to a people which will not accept our neo-liberal notions of statecraft would be folly.
Another progressive president, by the way.
Obama seems to think that sitting down with our enemies will encourage them to work with us for our mutual betterment. Surely it will embolden them to some action, though I suspect not to our liking.
To be fair, I am convinced that Obama would be forced to accept political realities and would never sit down with the likes of Iran without preconditions. It's empty campaign speak, to me.
It is weak evidence. But I believe you've spent most of the time telling me what the people want as opposed to what Barack Obama can actually do. I contend he will grow government, apply principles that inhibit our ability to pursue our national interests and damage the economy.
The political spectrum isn't something I dreamed up the other day. I believe that we should take the Constitution at its face value, and apply the standards therein. The ideas in the Constitution are classical liberalism. I define this to be the natural political state of our country.
Is your implication that because I don't agree with "the public" that somehow my thoughts are less valid? In a world where there can be no objective judgment of a position I suppose groupthink is perfectly acceptable.I thought I had. At the risk of sounding lazy I don't really want to read through the other 120 comments on this blog. I can't say that Obama's policies won't work. I'm sure that he can make healthcare available to everyone and their cousin. I'm sure he can pull us out of Iraq. My question is: Should he? I'm saying that his policies are not correct for our system of government, and that in the past such measures have led to even more Republican presidents.
Reagan outspent the Soviets on bombs. He also outfoxed them on the international stage. I'm not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning. How is it that LBJ and JFK are spared the blame for Vietnam? I mean, we lost 58,000 men there. Quite a bit more costly for a much less personal war. Of course, Europe wasn't complaining then because we were keeping them from being overrun by the Red Army.
Ironically, they are being overrun by radical Islamists, but can't muster up the courage to support us as we fight them. Tangential, I know. Ignore.
I don't like it, but I can understand the difficulty. Our enemies are coordinating their activities via cellphone and e-mail. That we do not notice the daily impact of the government's activities is both troubling and reassuring. I have not had my liberties revoked, but I am not plotting against the country.
How do we track these people? Or, do we abandon the idea that we need to track them? I'd love to be the President when that blows up in our face.
Irresponsible? I don't think it rises to that level of hyperbole. Irredeemable, perhaps. However, I would console you with the knowledge that I view the Democratic Party Platform et hoc genus omne as fascist-leaning. It's like the Budweiser of fascism. The American version is quite tame.
He hasn't given us much of a record to dissect. And the fact that he is more liberal than I am is sufficient reason to criticize him. It's not a tomato-tomahto thing. I disagree with Progressive liberalism, because I view classical liberalism as the natural state of our country.
You have done in all this long commentary, what I have done in mine. That is, failed to prove this point of yours.
Can we just agree that he is overhyped and call it a month? This page takes forever to load nowadays.