I think people forget sometimes that the American President is not just head of government, but also head of state. The president is our general representative and our face to the world, and should represent the very best about us.
At work so just barely following here, but I want to agree with those saying the country is in a funk and that we need a change. I don’t necessarily support Obama’s programs…but I’ve read one of his books and listened to the man and I think he will be good for the country in the next 9 years. We are going to need something to wash the taste of GW out of our collective mouths…and really, it’s time to give the Dem’s another shot and see if they can do better.
This will be THEIR make or break time…they will control 2 of the 3 branches of government…and the really vital 2 for the kinds of programs they want implemented. We’ll see how they do getting their own programs pushed through and how those programs work. It will be interesting from my perspective to see what the Dems do with this chance. Will they implement UHC? Will it work? Will they attempt to push through things like raising the cap on minimum wage? Will they push through a bunch of new social programs? How will we pay for them? What will they do about Iraq and Afghanistan? What will they do with our relations with foreign powers?
It will be a VERY interesting couple of years.
-XT
I will be voting for Obama in the General. I voted for Romney in the Primary.
Umm, Obama doesn’t have ‘Muslim ties’, at least not at the level of say, Carter, Reagan, or the Bushes had. I doubt we’ll see him kissing King Abdullah on the mouth.
Yeah, the only thing Muslims like more than a homosexual atheist is an apostate. :dubious:
I cannot believe how strongly I agree with these statements.
And this one as well. I believe that these are pretty much the most important issues right now–in a nutshell, how we feel about ourselves as a people and how we got along with the rest of the world–and Obama is the only candidate who could achieve such a lofty vision. Clinton would bring more divisiveness to the American people, McCain a trenchant “with us or against us” maverick attitude to the world (though probably not as bad as Bush). Obama is the only person I have hope in to restore our unified identity as a nation to the extent it is possible, and to recover our prestige abroad.
I should have brought Liberal (or at least his words) when I spoke in favor of Obama at my caucus this past Saturday. It turned out well, regardless, but thanks for your thoughts, Liberal. The primaries ain’t over!
Sam Stone Do you know how rare it is that someone is able to encapsulate why they oppose Obama? Thank you for that. You’ve given me some stuff to think about. I still like him better than the opposition, but finally someone with a rational argument, rather than just some knee-jerk reaction against hope.
If you do get to speak again at some time, you might want to raise one more point. Taking care of our image and self-esteem takes care of other ills as well. Our currency, for example, is based on nothing more than full faith and confidence. When people are optimistic, they tend to invest more and hoard less. So a great leader can even be a key factor in economic stimulation.
That is indeed a good point. Thanks!
You’ve got that right, but not for the reason you think. The people who need to watch out are the ones who have been screwing us over. The people who are going to need to watch out are the ones who extract our wealth and send our jobs overseas, who foul our air, water and soil, who are belligerent towards others in the world and who think corporations know better than people.
Yeah, I know, that sounds like Edwards or something, but seriously, how many decades are we supposed to wait for the supply side to do the right thing?
The Democrats are more fiscally prudent than the Republicans. Myriad social programs and universal healthcare are pennies on the dollar compared to the resources squandered on being the world’s corporate goon squad/dumbassedly willing pissing contest participants.
[/soapbox]
Having said that, you are certainly correct in that Obama’s crossover appeal doesn’t reflect his actual voting patterns. I think, however, that this election isn’t going to come down to the old ideological differences. Maybe we’re on the cusp of a new era, where we can debate/refine/implement policies pragmatically, without giving too much weight to the source. It’s refreshing. I, for one, would like to be able to support fiscally conservative policies without having to take socially conservative baggage to go with it, just as I would like to be able to consider how we can help people without it always being “cut 'em a check, screw the rich”. I want policies debated on their merits, but not through the previous filters.
Well, I for one am one of those many anti-hope voters. I oppose hope in all forms, and also change.
I support the same old, tired policies that got us into this mess, and want an insider candidate who will kowtow to the entrenched powerbrokers in Washington. Above all, I want a politician who divide us, putting aside the American people and doing what’s right for his or her own partisan agenda.
I’m not sure which way I’m going to vote, but I’m confident that my agenda will win.
Well then I’ve come to see the light as well. Waterboarding can be a positive experience…
Congrats Scylla. Welcome to humanity.
More consistently? Than who? Obama? Absolutely. Bush? Probably. Stephen Harper himself seems quite close to what I consider to be the best mix of what I believe coupled with pragmatic realism of what is possible to accomplish. But the Conservatives here are a minority government and quite limited in what they can do. In any event, they’ve cut taxes, re-funded our military and re-engaged with our NATO commitments, while increasing the size of our surplus. Not bad. But that’s really not on topic for this thread, so let’s leave it at that.
I don’t get this at all. Please explain to me exactly what Obama offers to Libertarians. Show me where he’s going to cut the size of government, reduce interference in the market, or do anything else that should please Libertarians.
So is Hugo Chavez. Giving a rousing, inspirational speech should only matter to Libertarians if he motivates people to leave each other alone. History is littered with great orators and inspirational leaders who used their gifts to rouse their country into disastrous actions.
This may be true, and it’s a valid point for Obama. Everyone is sick of having a president so incapable of articulating his own positions that he makes America look evil or foolish. Republicans are certainly sick of having a Republican President who is either completely incapable of or unwilling to defend conservative principles. In a time of war, you want a president who can talk to the people, reassure them, explain what his plans are, and present the best face of his country to the world. Bush has been an utter failure in this regard, while Obama is naturally gifted in all these areas. He’s a breath of fresh air.
But ultimately, his political and economic philosophy and plans still matter, and the ‘meat’ of Obama’s campaign should be complete anathema to thinking Libertarians. As I said, he’s shockingly interventionist. More so than Dukakis was. FAR more so than Clinton was. This matters.
Couldn’t you say the same about many of the people who support Obama? How many of them even know what his platform is? People like the idea of Obama - they’re yearning for a fresh frace with great communicaton skills - someone who can stand up and speak to the world and make Americans feel good about themselves and their leader. I get that. I sympathize with it. But this is a dangerous road to go down. Do you want a president with a cult of personality? This is the way banana republics choose their leaders.
That’s maybe too harsh - there is certainly tremendous value in having a leader who is able to articulate his beliefs and persuade the rest of the world on behalf of his country. It’s a strong checkmark in the Obama column. All I’m saying is that you can’t let star quality blind you to the reality of what the man actually plans to do. If you agree with it (as many here do), then great. And I wouldn’t blame you for supporting Obama with the zeal that many conservatives supported Reagan with.
What I don’t understand are the Libertarians and Conservatives who are willing to cross the aisle and abandon their political philosophy simply because they are yearning for someone with charisma.
See, this is what I’m talking about. This person believes that Obama is going to charge in and kick some corporate butt, knock the fat-cats down a notch or two, and keep the pesky foreigners from taking your jobs. And that’s pretty much what Obama says he’s going to do. So I don’t blame Anarky one bit for being excited about Obama. I just don’t understand how a libertarian can feel anything but fear at the prospect.
Not to hijack this thread into an economics debate, but where does ‘supply side’ come from? Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with supply side economics. If you’re using ‘supply side’ as a synonym for ‘capitalism’, then I’d say it’s done damned well for America, and you’d be foolish to start dismantling it or trying to control it. If you mean something else, I don’t get it.
Right. Because people who don’t think like you are inhuman. Got it. Obama’s lucky to have people like you on his freight train to inclusivity and partisan reconciliation.
Certainly you can make such a claim. My issue is that I have been into many threads on conservative boards where the complaints against him are more vague than the supporters of Obama. Obama supporters can at least point to some pet issues. If you post links to his issues page you generally don’t get any substantive debate. You encapsulated an anti-Obama stance that was cogent and worth examining. I would’ve LOVED to hear more of that in those discussions. I mean, I understand he’s pretty left, and I knew that, but it’s just that you don’t get much intelligent commentary from his detractors usually. Usually it’s just making fun of his slogans. The weirdest is when people say, “You can’t tell where he stands.”, when his stances are VERY VERY VERY clear, and there are plenty of places to disagree with them. To say he is vague and vapid just shows that one hasn’t really done any homework before they formed their opinion.
Looks like Obama just took Virginia by a large margin.
I agree with all that, to some degree. Certainly Obama has many big plans. My personal belief is that most of them will never happen, and that many of them are incredibly misguided and would have the opposite effect of what he wants.
For example, reneging on NAFTA would have horrible repercussions. It could spark a trade war with your biggest trading partner and maybe your most important strategic asset - the country that has by far your biggest source of non-middle eastern oil. Trade protectionists never consider that the country you erect barriers against can erect their own right back - and will. His strongly pro-union positions should be re-evaluated in light of the fact that excessive union demands are one of the major causes of the decline of American manufacturing and outsourcing. Etc.
But he certainly has plans, and they are easy to find. Anyone supporting or opposing Obama should do so with their eyes open and with full knowledge of what he intends to do once in office.
Well, my hope basically is that his naive idealism will be tempered by the reality, and that he’ll be guided by principles rather than trying to implement his specific plans. I heard some story about Bill Clinton being sat down by Greenspan and told the facts of life before proceeding on economic policy, this being why his actual policy differed so greatly from his campaign promises. I am not sure that Bernanke will have the gravitas to impress upon Obama like Greenspan did upon Clinton. America needs to do some protectionist sabre-rattling IMO. We need not go hog-wild, that would be stupid, but we are too dependent upon our largest rival, and that’s not a good thing. Repealing NAFTA is just plain stupid. We’re not doing that badly here in America. I hope that his bipartisanship will keep him listening to some fiscally conservative policies.
As I understand Lib thinking, and I could be wrong, there’s a hierarchy of priorities. Civil liberties are more important than a free market. The war has eroded our civil liberties and expanded the power of the government – that is, the executive branch – to detain people indefinitely without charges or access to courts or counsel. Obama is the likeliest to end the war and roll all that back.
Can you cite the Nafta part? That is not in his policy statements.
It should be noted that I have made no such assertion.
I have offered for consideration the thought that (among a large number of good and bad possible events) IF Obama takes the presidency without a secure mandate (i.e., if we have another election decided by inches and not feet), then there is the possibilty that his actual goals will die in repeated committee games in Congress.
If this thread is a genuine reflection of the way the country is going to go, then he will have the mandate and will be able to use Reagan’s “Go over the heads of Congress to the people” tactic. Alternatively, Kennedy and Leahy and others are supporting him because they like his goals and not because they fear that they will have no such power to shut down policies promoted by Hillary Clinton and he will have a willing Congress with which to work.
I don’t know how any of this is going to turn out; I just figured that in the middle of this parade, someone should note that there are potholes on the road. It may be that the float drivers and marching bands will avoid them, but I thought it prudent to mention their presence.