…and a great sense of humor to boot.
Actually, it is. I got it off his policy page. Here’s another quote from his web site:
In a modern market economy, there’s actually a fairly limited range of options a president has to truly affect the economy. Even 200 billion dollar injection of pork such as the current ‘stimulus’ only amounts to about 1% of GDP. But trade is different. Trade tariffs and regulations can cause huge dislocations and disruptions of capital flow. So to me, a prime prerequisite of any candidate is that he or she be a free trader. Obama doesn’t pass.
Okay, I can see where that would be a big strike for you. I never saw a Nafta reference when I went through his policies, but I spent far more time on Environment, Health Care, Veteran’s Affairs and Military Policies.
I went through this page early last month. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Here is his full statement on Free Trade:
I am quite comfortable with this statement, I am surprised you are not. I think you found the most negative spin possible for his statement.
Jim
John McCain has been put in the position of having to campaign against Obama in his own primary: In states with open primaries, Obama is sucking away many of the the independant and moderate republicans that McCain needs to beat the huckster.
Considering McCain’s lead in delegates, approximately 789 to Huck’s 241, I doubt he has much of a problem. His problem is yet to come, trying to get enough voters to vote for him over Obama.
McCain’s biggest problem is that the Republican’s aren’t fully behind him…while whether Hillary or Obama wins makes little difference. The Dem’s are going to be fully behind which ever of them wins I’m thinking. And if Obama wins I think he’ll carry over a lot of dis-satisfied independents and moderates. It won’t be his stances on things like trade or economics…it will be HIM. His sheer charisma and presence.
Myself, I’m hoping that once in office, like Clinton, he’ll be smart enough to moderate his positions and move to the center. And I know he’ll do a LOT for the US image, and US confidence.
I’m willing to take a chance on the man myself even if his politics are pretty far from my own. This could be a GREAT president I’m thinking…I’m hoping. We need a great president at this point…
-XT
This is well said. The reality is that we have extreme division between two political ideologies that are uncompromising, unyielding, and ultimately, unproductive. Nothing is accomplished on the hill, and we all lose. The government has served as a source of division instead of unity. Our lawmakers flip the bird at advisories and resort to immature, insulting, name calling when challenged. Ideally, I would like to see a solid progressive in the White House, but I am willing to compromise. Life is about compromise on similar believes and commonalties in opposing ideas. I am taking the leap of faith, hoping Obama can accomplish some of his ideas while compromising on others. Never dismiss ideas over actuality. This country was founded on extraordinary ideas. Obama’s message is powerful and desperately needed. Most Americans feel pretty hopeless.
Well, until a “thinking Libertarian” comes along, I guess I’ll have to defend my position as best I can. The fact is, as I see it, there has not been a realistic choice for Libertarians since Ron Paul was Swiftboated early on by Fox News and the New Republic — practically the moment he showed even a hint of being a viable threat.
And so three authoritarian candidates remain. Of these, which is the best choice for a person who holds a political philosophy of noncoercion? You say there is a problem with Obama’s positions, mainly economic, and I’ve said the same thing. But the difference between him and the other two is that he is a person of principle. His goals, misguided though they be, are not of the “We will take your property away from you for the common good” type. Unlike Hillary, who wants to take that property so she can get her cut of it before doling out the remainder, Obama sincerely wants to help people. At least, that’s what I’m convinced of.
So why does that matter? It matters because if he is a person of principle, then there is at least the chance that he will come to understand the principle of noncoercion and realize that it is the foundation upon which the most people can be helped. Can John McCain be convinced that the war in Iraq is a travesty of principle? No. Can Hillary Clinton be convinced that taking people’s property actually stymies economic progess? No. But Obama is a leader by principle, in the style of Reagan. Note that Reagan did not appreciate the free-market in any meaningful sense until he read Human Action.
Libertarians have traditionally argued that given the choice between an economic authoritarian (Hillary) and a social authoritarian (McCain), we should support the social authoritarian on the theory that Americans, if stripped of their personal liberties, will rise up in rebellion. I was always dubious about the idea, and now it has been proven to be false. Nobody cares that government reads our mail, taps our phones, conducts warrantless searches, or any of the rest of it. The vigilance is lost. The will to fight is gone. Americans are pussies, addicted to the government teat.
Therefore, there is no hope for the restoration of the America embodied in the Statue of Liberty with either Hillary or McCain. But Obama is different. I believe that he will admit when he is wrong, that he will examine his own decisions in a more objective way, and that he will change course when he sees that punishing success is destructive to the economy as a whole.
The fact of the matter is that Americans no longer care about how free they are, and George W Bush is partly responsible for that on account of making a mockery of the whole concept of freedom with his notion that it can be shoved down people’s throats and the irony that he is taking away all of it that he can from the people he governs. He has made a running joke of practically every American ideal. McCain and Clinton both will run with this and carry the ball into the endzone, where their payoff will be wealth and power. But Obama has decided to play an entirely different game.
Even if he succeeds in putting through all his policies, the result will be no more horrible than if the other two do the same. But the fact that he is a reasonable and thinking person tilts the scale in his favor. I think he is not only the best hope for America; he is the last hope. If he does not become our President, then our children or their children will be dealing with world’s new Superpowers — China and Russia. And they will do it with a weakened dollar, a weakened military, and a weakened image abroad.
This is why it is crucial to get Obama in the White House.
They’re up to something, there is skullduggery afoot. Made a deal with the Devil? No, Satan is a registered Republican…
Not true, everyone knows that Satan is a card carrying commie. I even had a history teacher that said so. 
Of course he is only a commie in the way that Stalin was, but that is besides the point. That reminds me, when some minister or adviser said that “I would put in a good word for Satan if Hitler invaded Hell”. Winston immediately quipped that “Stalin would be happy to hear that”.
Now come to think of it, Cheney does appear to be Satan’s minion or spawn, so maybe Satan did change parties.
They’re just trying to distract us, lull us into a false sense of security and then wham! libertarian martial law! Or something, fuzzy on the details…
lol…libertarian martial law! That’s a good one! I suppose that means that the government has to turn over all it’s guns to the citizens and stay indoors whenever it’s night out…
-XT
And there will be tollbooths on every road.
I really don’t understand this. If both Obama and Clinton hold the same positions - and, AFAICT, they do - then what difference does it make what their intentions are?
The only reason I can see for voting for Obama over Clinton is that Obama is that much less likely to achieve his goals, due to lack of experience. So I can see voting for him because he won’t do very much. But then one ought to vote for Republicans to take over Congress, so that gridlock will prevent enactment of the Democratic agenda that both Hilary and Obama espouse.
How does electing someone who bases his campaign on one set of principles encourage him to change those principles?
I think you are confusing two senses of the word “principle”. One means being decent and honest and so forth. AFAIK Obama is that - at least, he has not been in the public eye long enough for any major scandals to come to light. And I think it is pretty clear that Ms. “I have no idea how those documents got onto my library table two days after the subpoena expired” is not nearly as principled as Obama is, in that sense.
The other meaning of “principle” is “an organizing idea around which one bases one’s politics”. And I rather doubt if one could slip a dime into the gap between Obama’s principles (in that sense) and Hilary’s.
Ah feel Sam Stone’s payin and yours about the absence of a candidate who actually embodies conservative principles. But politics is the art of the possible. I decline to support a candidate who bases his campaign on nice speechifying, and relies on that to convince me that he will not actually bring about what he claims to want.
Obama is a standard issue, Democratic politician. He has better PR than Hilary. Apart from that, same old same old.
I don’t know about this. We survived Carter I; I see no reason that we couldn’t survive Carter II. And frankly, the President just doesn’t have this kind of power, for good or ill.
Regards,
Shodan
Whatever HRC might be, I can’t see her as an embezzler of public funds.
It’s psychological Shodan. Obama has gone from a *** standard issue, Democratic politician*** to a Movement Candidate. People want that - sort of like rebounding from a failed relationship. And I’m not so sure he’d get as little done as you think he would, I think he’d get a fair amount done in 8 years.
If his momentum keeps going the way it is, Obama could sweep into office with significant gains in both houses (though a supermajority would probably be hard to get to in the Senate) and a huge wave of public good will on his side. Don’t misunderestimate his potential to move legislation through Congress. At the very least, I think we’d get some kind of UHC and I think there’d be less resistance to Obama moving that through than Hillary (for whom the Pubs would just dig in their heels while the Insurance companies ran a full-court press with scare ads. It would work too. Facts have no application to conservative hatred of Hillary). Barack would get a more fair shake from the public, even though the ads would still be out there.
“Vote Obama - Like that Cheap Slut You Spent the Weekend with After Your First Divorce!”
Well, it works better for Obama than Hilary, I’ll give you that. But then I wake up on Sunday afternoon with a hangover and herpes, and find she cleaned out my wallet.
Regards,
Shodan