Name Some Changes You Anticipate Obama Making.

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by SomeMildLanguage, Feb 5, 2008.

  1. SomeMildLanguage

    SomeMildLanguage 500+ Posts

    He's likeable. He's a good orator. He can be funny. He's got the Bill Clinton cool guy vibe. The media love him. And he's going to change America. He's Barack Obama.

    We hear a lot of vague platitudes and meaningless jibberjabber about "change" these days. Obama will change our country, so get on board. And so on.

    There are some obvious things that Obama would change. He would be the first African-American POTUS, which could be construed as changing the dynamic of race relations in America. I can sort of buy that, although I don't think it would change anything meaningful or substantive. Nor would some of the root causes of racial inequality suddenly change trajectory; some may even become more reinforced. But I'll buy that Obama, as a black president, would change America in a general sense. He might inspire young black men who are on the fence between gangs/drugs and success in school to choose the right path. He might pave the way for more black opportunity in various fields of pursuit. Some people think he might disarm certain European anti-American types, or skeptical people in the third world, simply by being black (not to mention his Muslim-sounding name). That he might mend relations between America and the world, by proving that America can elect a black man. Those potential things are hard to quantify but would generally change America. And the sum total of all of those unquantifiable things leans to being better than worse.

    He is only 46 years old, which would make him the youngest president in quite some time. That might somehow change the culture of politics, away from an elderly-dominated game (I don't really buy that one) and toward more youth participation in politics and more youth investment in social capital. Meh on this one. He's not THAT young, and I tend not to buy that he is going to get young people to change the way they interact with the world. To the extent that he does, what will that accomplish? I don't think youth voting is that significant of a problem. He might cause an uptick in youth voting, to the tune of ~5%, maybe a little more. Not really that big of a deal. In terms of getting people to volunteer more, or join the military or the peace corps, I just don't see Obama or anyone else being able to accomplish that with speeches or government programs. Those things are not within the purview of government.

    Obama's relative inexperience also gives him somewhat of a blank slate. He hasn't accomplished a series of tangible things as a legislator. He has even avoided taking positions on certain things, because he simply has been there for such a brief period. A blank slate, electorally, can be good. There's less chance of being called a flip-flopper. There's less of a record to scrutinize (although his brief record does indicate that he is perhaps the most left-wing member of the Senate). His youth, in other words, might change America a little bit, but I doubt it. As a 26 year old, I think this category is neutral and possibly even negative for Obama, given that he has shown some poor judgment in the Rezko situation, which sort of shows his naivety and points to him potentially being easily manipulated by unsavory forces.

    So, beyond that, we hear about how Obama can unite independents and Republicans and Democrats and so on. Yeah. Right. I just don't see it. People can campaign on that sort of thing, but ultimately the atmosphere in Washington and elsewhere is adversarial. It's designed to be that way. We ultimately don't want unity. We want debate. We want gatekeepers preventing mob rule or a charismatic and dominant personality from getting anything he wants at any time. We often elect people to check the power of other people, not to agree with the compelling figure because he gives good speeches. Even if Obama somehow wins and begins his term with 60% approval, it will plummet in a hurry, because he will take actions that gradually alienate more and more interests. That goes for McCain or anyone else still running today. That's why the honeymoon period almost always wears off after a short time and few presidents are ever able to recapture that fleeting spirit of unity right after inauguration. Any president who ACTUALLY changes anything of substance, or ACTUALLY tries to, will see his approval rating fall. Sure, later on, he may get credit for a brilliant policy change, but in the short/medium term, the more a president sets out to do, the more vulnerable he becomes to entire categories of people and entire interest groups abandoning him. And then he loses his political capital and can't get anything else done. It's the tragedy of American politics: the more you try to do, the more people you piss off. The more people you piss off, the less you can get done. FDR and a few others have been exceptions to this rule (because success can breed success, but only when there is a true national consensus for action), but circumstances do not point to Obama having the sort of clout FDR had.

    Which brings up specific policies. What ACTUAL changes would Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., after putting his hand on that Bible and repeating the oath administered by Chief Justice John Roberts, bring or try to bring?

    I see some problematic ones, right off the bat. We know all about what he intends to do on Iraq-- it's been hashed out a million times-- so I won't go into that one.

    1. TAXES. Obama would raise personal income, corporate income, and payroll (Social Security) taxes, all of which are already too high. That's a change, all right, but in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, Obama is far from visionary or inspiring on important changes in this category. We need major tax reform, with lower, flatter, simpler taxes. We need Social Security reform with personal accounts, not higher taxes to pay for a broken system. He's just really wrong on these things and his "change" is straight out of the Walter Mondale playbook. It's old and stodgy and stale, not new or interesting or game-changing.

    2. ENTITLEMENTS. Speaking of Social Security, entitlements in general (Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) are already the major component of federal spending and with the Baby Boomers now retiring, we are looking at a world of hurt without major reform now. This is a perfect opportunity for change. Obama seems to want to change these programs by simply raising taxes rather than modernizing them, giving people more choice, etc. I simply cannot agree that a candidate embodies "change" if that candidate doesn't support real entitlement reform, beginning with personal accounts in Social Security.

    3. TRADE. Obama says he will tack on labor and environmental agreements on any trade bill. He wants to amend NAFTA, whatever that means. He opposed CAFTA. He opposed the free trade agreement with South Korea. Obama has a seriously flawed positon on trade. By most indications, he would not promote free trade or make it a priority. This is not the politics of change. This is the 20th century politics of labor unions and protectionism.

    4. UNIONS/LABOR. Obama supports the "card check" which would eliminate secret ballots in union elections. Eesh. He says he will work to ban the replacement of striking workers. Yikes. It's hard to tell, but it seems like he would work for a national measure that would undermine the concept of "right to work" states. If elected, Obama would be the most pro-union President since, perhaps, Carter. Maybe even LBJ. That's not change. That's retro. And it's a move in the wrong direction.

    5. HEALTH CARE. I understand the impulse for universal health care. I tend to believe this is the single biggest issue that many Republicans have just ceded to Democrats, when, really, Republicans (ones who believe in free markets, at least) could have a major advantage, politically. This shouldn't be a question of EITHER status quo or socialized medicine. The status quo has some fantastic things about it, but it's also fundamentally broken. So, the question becomes: "how do we move from a broken status quo to a more universal health care system without screwing up the economy, without neutralizing America's medical superiority, and without destroying individual choice?" Without getting too wonky, let's just say there are fantastic ideas out there, and most of them shake the status quo to the core. Really, really interesting ideas that fundamentally drive down costs, preserve awesome care, prevent lines and rationing, extend coverage to everyone, and keep government mostly at bay. The main problem we have today is that we already have a system that is partially run by the government. SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, plus prison health care, plus reimbursements for undocumented workers who show up at emergency rooms without insurance, and veteran health care. That covers a lot of people.

    The next problem is that, after WWII, we set up a system that decoupled insurance from individuals. Most Americans have insurance through employers. It's not portable, because you are just renting it from your company while you work there. Employers get tax subsidies to buy insurance. Individuals, for the most part, do not. There are no incentives to shop around and get a better deal. There are not enough incentives for consumers to be smart with their health. There are only recently some small incentives for putting aside money for future health care expenses. There are no incentives for doctors and hospitals and pharmacies to compete for dollars, knowing people will just come in and throw down their insurance card plus the 20 dollar co-pay and not even ask how much the care really is worth. There are also extremely few incentives for reducing paperwork, making medical records electronic, and streamlining processes.

    For most Americans, they've already acquiesced to others making health care decisions for them. They already think health care is "free." What we need to do is incentivize and empower individuals and create a true market for health care, in which doctors and clinics and hospitals and drug companies would be forced to strive to be the best at the lowest cost or risk losing customers. We also need to open up the insurance market, so people in Texas can buy insurance from any American company rather than only companies exclusively within their own state. People should also be able to join together with their fellow church members or other group members to buy discounted personal insurance at group rates. We need to expand the concept of Health Savings Accounts (which can be subsidized by employers or tax benefits), so people can pay for health care from the HSA without middleman insurance companies, while still having protections in the event of catastrophic health problems.

    We also need to recognize that 45% of the uninsured are uninsured for four months or less (because they are transitioning from one job to another), 25% are eligible for public programs like Medicaid or Medicare but are not enrolled in them, and 20% earn enough money to afford health insurance but choose not to buy it. There are also millions of young people who are not insured, because they typically feel invulnerable and don't want to throw money down the drain. There are also illegal immigrants involved in those numbers of uninsured Americans. These figures are important to keep in mind, because many "universal" plans are often one-size-fits-all and would not properly address some of these very unique subcategories of "the uninsured."

    All of that being said, most Republicans have just given this issue away to Democrats and said, "you win." Again, that's just very unfortunate, because both Hillary and Obama have terrible impulses when it comes to health care.

    Obama is especially interesting, because his plan seems to cost roughly what any other socialized health care system would cost (maybe 80% of what Hillary's plan costs), but, as others have pointed out, it would still leave 15 million uninsured. I don't get it. What on earth is the point? Obama, on health care, represents LOTS more government without even ending the annoying "x million Americans without insurance" talking point we hear in every campaign. He also doesn't represent the kind of fundamental paradigm shift-- either toward true nationalized universal coverage (boo!) or a market-based incentive structure with large tax benefits and even some tax subsidies/credits (yay!)-- we need on health care reform. Obama seems to represent incrementalism on health care reform. More of the same. Growth in government responsibility/scope/authority/size for the sake of growth. His end goal is the same goal as Hillary Clinton's goal, he's just muddled and not so audacious in getting there.
    6. COURTS. I really don't know much about Obama's potential future nominees, but he voted against both Roberts (who passed in the Senate 78-22) and Alito (who passed 58-42). I don't really want an ideologically right or left court, but I think both Roberts and Alito were fantastic choices based on their resumes, their intellect, and their commitment to judicial restraint rather than activism. In choosing the next nominee (or two, or three), based on what he said during the Roberts and Alito confirmations, Obama would rely entirely too much on descriptive representation (picking a woman or minority for the sake of having a woman or minority on the bench) and would embrace ideological activism from the Supreme Court. I guess that's change. I'd rather have the most qualified person, period, rather than the most qualified person belonging to a particular narrow group, and I'd rather not have policy change emanate from the largely unaccountable, unelected bench.

    7. MISCELLANEOUS. As any politician tends to have, there are probably two or three dozen small and marginally significant proposals from Obama on a variety of things. I've read his entire 64 page .pdf "Blueprint for Change" on his website. Many of the miscellaneous changes are just slogans or concepts ("encourage organic and local agriculture" or "combat methamphetamine") rather than real ideas. Or, to the extent they are real ideas, it's stuff like "expand hate crimes statutes" or "create an affordable housing trust fund." Not really priorities for most Americans.

    What I want to know, from Obama supporters or otherwise, what changes you see coming from Obama. Actual changes. Tangible changes.
    Which changes excite you? Which changes trouble you? I don't necessarily want you to address the 6 categories I wrote about. I would rather know what other people, especially those who are passionately behind Obama, think Obama will set out to accomplish. For that matter, I am interested in what people think he might set out to accomplish but not accomplish for whatever reason.

    Moreover, I am interested in how accomplishing a big, left-wing, protectionist, pro-union, high tax agenda and bringing together the entire spectrum of Americans, left/right/middle/other, are compatible goals. They seem mutually exclusive to me.

    I tend to believe that Hillary will win the nomination, but I still would like to hear the types of changes Obama would bring or try to bring.
     
  2. beencounting

    beencounting 500+ Posts

    great post and we must appreciate the time you took even if some would disagree with you on everything.

    Main point of BO is that he really want to cut loose of Iraq to save US troops, $$$, and the US image. He truly feels it is a useless exercise and I agree.
     
  3. utexas_61

    utexas_61 500+ Posts

    that is a very long post
     
  4. TrashMaster G

    TrashMaster G 250+ Posts

    I don't anticipate Obama making any changes because I don't think he will be elected.
     
  5. Napoleon

    Napoleon 2,500+ Posts

    That post contained 2,526 words.

    Quick response- If
    Obama becomes president, I see a clusterfuck of 2009. Then hopefully, he would figure out the office and the game.

    WJ Clinton's 1993 - abysmal (which led to the "Contract With America" )

    GW Bush's 2001 - abysmal until 9/11... then he didn't have to answer to anyone anymore. (Horrible for the USA, great for him doing whatever the f**k his peeps wanted to do.)

    Obama would be a 3rd "Outsider" in a row. I say this because he was a legislator who was then elected in 2004 and has been campaigning ever since. I wouldn't say 1+ year of washington makes you a "seasoned veteran" and I have no idea who is driving his train. He's good at speeches, but I worry about his ability to get anything done.

    JFK had a ton more experience in DC than Obama (a TON) and he had his *** handed to him right up until he had his head handed to him. His strong suit- giving speeches. His weak suit- everything else.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. bozo_casanova

    bozo_casanova 2,500+ Posts

    SML,

    An excellent post regardless of where I stand- one thing- I disagree with your take on health care.
    Our primary problem isn't a problem of access but rather incenting the wrong things. I believe that Obama's plan moves us (not enough, but some) towards incentives for care delivery and cuts incentives for overhead growth. In short, point of service, front line medicine becomes a profit center again, and administration becomes the cost center. I'm OK with 15 million uninsured people in that scenario, because uninsured care will be more affordable for them, too.

    The change you haven't mentioned, and frankly I think this is important, is that it begins the process of ushering the baby boomers out, and with them, hopefully, a whole set of cultural baggage that has poisoned our shared political discourse.
     
  7. Super

    Super 500+ Posts

    Looks like you've answered your own question quite sufficiently.
    Sounds like we might as well just let Bush remain President, for all the good this 'voting' will do.

    I don't buy that you were looking for real answers from anybody who disagrees with your assessment, so I won't waste your time. I've got more phone calls to make for Barack.... [​IMG]
     
  8. Fried JJ Pickles

    Fried JJ Pickles 1,000+ Posts


     
  9. Texas007

    Texas007 1,000+ Posts

    So basically he is just like every other tax and spend liberal except he is trying to act different and he looks "different". Great.
     
  10. TahoeHorn

    TahoeHorn 1,000+ Posts

    I like your analysis with one major caveat. You talk about what Obama would do instead of what he would try to do. Some things a President yries to do won't work because he can't generate the support in Congress. Most of the things you talk about would definitely be unpopular with Republican legislators. The $64,000 question is whether the Republican Senators could/would block them. I believe they would block many of them.
     
  11. beencounting

    beencounting 500+ Posts

    we sure do have such a stark contract in BO vs. McCain with one having a youthful image energizing young voters and the other running Reagan footage in his ads.
     
  12. TahoeHorn

    TahoeHorn 1,000+ Posts

    One of the TV commentators asked a roomful of Obama supporters to name a political accomplishment of Obama which impressed them. None could think of one. Can you? I can't.
     
  13. triplehorn

    triplehorn 2,500+ Posts

    One of the biggest things that we need from the next POTUS is someone who can begin to heal some of the institutional damage that has occurred under this Admin. It calls for an acknowledgement of that harm, sound judgement, and a return to being accountable to the rule of law.

    I didn't see much of that addressd in SML's post - acknowledgement of the harm caused by the Bush Admin to our institutions, that is. You could start with the DoJ, but you can basically can lift any corner and find politicization and corruption.

    I have heard very little from Clinton directly calling this out. Obama has, repeatedly. We're not talking witch hunts, just restoring the system to work in the way it's intended - not perfection, not absence of all wrongdoing, just a return to basic accountability. This matter is not about 'experience'. In fact, 'experience' inside the beltway and in DC royalty is inversely correlated with doing it right, imo.

    Obama strikes me as the one most likely to bring about the changes that are being most overlooked in the media, mainly because it reflects so incredibly poorly on our current executive office holders.

    .
     
  14. SomeMildLanguage

    SomeMildLanguage 500+ Posts

    I actually thought about doing a whole category for "ethics/corruption" but I don't find Obama to be credible on that issue. He has big, powerful interests backing him. He has Washington insiders running his campaign. He has his own ethics problems. As for politicization of the bureaucracy, Obama would appoint just as many stooges and cronies as Bush, who appointed just as many as Clinton, etc. I don't get how you think Bush did something unique by appointing loyal people when possible.
     
  15. SomeMildLanguage

    SomeMildLanguage 500+ Posts


     
  16. bozo_casanova

    bozo_casanova 2,500+ Posts


     
  17. SomeMildLanguage

    SomeMildLanguage 500+ Posts


     
  18. HoosierHorn

    HoosierHorn 500+ Posts

    Chicken and collard greens... or whatever it is they serve.

    It's politics. Who knows what anyone is ever going to do?

    Did we know Bush would have us in Iraq for, what some say, will be the rest of my life?

    Did we know Clinton would have us in NAFTA and poking interns with cigars?

    There's always something that changes.

    Having said that, Obama won't be changing his title.
     
  19. LCHorn

    LCHorn 100+ Posts


     
  20. Fried JJ Pickles

    Fried JJ Pickles 1,000+ Posts


     
  21. SomeMildLanguage

    SomeMildLanguage 500+ Posts


     
  22. Fried JJ Pickles

    Fried JJ Pickles 1,000+ Posts

    I can tell you with near 100% certainty how it will play out. I've discussed it on this board before.

    It's really simple - all that's needed is a perspective adjustment.

    The US economy is and will be more than healthy enough to support the growing population of elderly people. So Social Security will become welfare for the elderly. The idea of Social Security as a form of government mandated retirement investment will disappear. The idea of "getting back" what you put in will go away. Social Security will simply be a tax on the working population to support the non-working elderly. And just like that, Social Security problems are solved painlessly. Nobody will notice the difference.

    This will happen no matter who is in power. This is a rare political change that is all but inevitable. It won't matter if Republicans privatize social security or not. Ultimately there will be elderly that require government aid and they will receive it.
     
  23. zzzz

    zzzz 2,500+ Posts


     
  24. dognduckhorn

    dognduckhorn 500+ Posts

    The change I think Obama will bring to the table will be a change in direction from reactive politics to proposals that will move us, as a nation towards moving forward to deal with the changing of America. Call it setting a tone or a theme, but I think that, regardless of who wins the election, that is what a majority of Americans want and expect from the next President.

    Someone briefly mentioned Iraq. Lost in that discussion is a theme about our ability to counter international revisionist totalitarianism in reaction to Western democratic culture. How in the world did we, as a people, lose our nerve and our strength to deal with a very, very small minority polyglot that adopted and corrupted a major world religion as a pretext to advance a very destructive agenda. The fundamental flaw in the current Administration's "war on terror" is a dependence to counter primarily by unilateral military means a belief system whose use of isolated, but spectacular terror attacks has undermined social stability and threatens the very tenets that define us as a society. Our simplistic solo approach has alienated not just fence sitters, but vital allies that a less dogmatic cooperative approach could have allied with us to counter a common threat. If you replace fear with motivation that becomes a positive incentive to make policies that unite and motivate Americans to be, well, Americans -- innovative, positive and resourceful in tackling the whole spectrum. And the world will follow our lead, if we take the time to lay the groundwork for a coordinated response.

    The second major change that I think Obama can restore to the political system is accountability. Clinton made the art of spin a true art form. Bush managed to deflect accountability from anyone in this Administration, and consistently failed to accept responsibility or show an ability to learn from erroneous choices and policy decisions in a manner that demonstrated true intelligence and critical thinking. Just having someone in the White House who could demonstrate thinking, and, more critically, could educate and persuade the public that it was in their best interest to rally behind policy choices, even if some of those choices will not be legislated into law or policy. Concurrent with that, someone who will lead the government and make it work, and who will work to achieve their goals, not just dismantle government because of a fundamental philosophy that government can't work, therefore why bother.

    Call these gut feelings, but we currently have a President who operates on gut feelings without any indication that he examines the mechanism needed to put those feelings into action, or who can articulate those gut feelings into comprehensible arguments that can persuade others to adopt them.

    You cite lack of experience with Obama. I invite you to show me where George W. Bush, having presided as a weak governor over a state where the governor is not empowered to genuinely make and implement policy, came into office with any kind of background that qualified him, much less gave him experience to make and implement policy. There was little on his resume, aside from his terms as governor, that qualified or trained Bush to assume the Presidency. Prior to 9/11 there was little to show that Bush grew in office, and the circumstances post 9/11 foisted him into roles where he could act, indeed HAD to act, and he foundered badly.

    You mentioned race relations as having a potential to be addressed, and that is the 800 pound gorilla that this Administration has ignored that is still in the living room of American domestic life. It is closely tied to the other major hot issue in domestic life, illegal immigration and the rising influence of the Hispanic population. Both of these issues need to be addressed not only in terms of legislative agendas, but in tone and themes. In large part, I believe this issue has underlying themes of racism and cultural differences that simply are not discussed in a meaningful way. A fresh start is needed to set the theme and the tone of where do we go from here.

    Look back at the agenda that Bush and the Republicans promoted in the six years that they controlled the Federal Government. We had Terri Schiavo (massive government intrusion into intensely personal, family issues in the name of a "right to life" agenda, a persistent theme of reducing taxation without also reducing government spending, reduction in social programs without overall reduction in Federal spending, an insertion of Federally mandated educational standards without funding or enabling the States or localities to have the tools to support achieving those standards, and an abandonment of Federal programs relating to alternative energy and infrastructure which simply passed the funding and implementation of these programs to the States. Combine that with a selective agenda of preempting State autonomy (state civil suits preempted by Federal laws designed to immunize businesses, reducing access to bankruptcy protection without concurrently reducing the leverage that credit card companies and lending insitutions have over consumers), and you have a pretty poor legacy to encourage Americans to continue. In short, you have a Republican administration which did more to disembowel the legal rights, recourses and civil freedoms of individuals and concentrate unchecked, unaccountable power in the Executive branch of government than at any time in recent memory. Add to that a laissez faire attitude to turn over financial power to the private sector without corresponding regulation and checks to ensure that monopoly forces could overrun the free market and its operation, and deny the power of individual investors and entrepreneurs, and you have a recipe for financial disaster that we are now beginning to live, not to mention a huge period of deficit spending. Americans have lived like the Federal Government, unfettered living on credit and refinancing, and we are now starting to pay the bill. I think what is missing, and needs serious rebuilding, is an investment and revitalization in the thing that makes America work -- human capital.

    Unfettered by the past, Obama might restore some credibility in ways that both Bush and Clinton can't. That is empowerment in a way that ensures that government can lead.

    While you poo=poo the idea of trying to draw together a consensus of issues, the reality of current political life is that power is drawn from polarizing people to extremes, and setting the national agenda from there. It is destructive to national unity, and any agenda which, even superficially seeks to reach consensus would be an improvement.

    Other thoughts will come to mind, but these are my starter points to begin the discussion.
     
  25. gecko

    gecko 2,500+ Posts

    I believe one of the changes he'll be making is his underwear. Looks like Teddy couldn't deliver Massachusetts.
     
  26. dognduckhorn

    dognduckhorn 500+ Posts

    I offer this observation on your list. Of the five things you've listed, four are what I would call "pocketbook issues" and unless you are knee deep in your career, raising a family and making payments on a house, you have no real appreciation of how each of these items really affect a middle class household. Taxes are a fact of life, but there is really no real tax relief offered to a two wage earner household that this Adminstration has offered.

    Rip into Social Security all you like, but noone, not even us baby boomers, look at that as a retirement net, yet we've paid into all our lives. But it is constant. Talk privitization all you like, but in the current market, if you are trying to plan retirement, you do not have the element of consistent risk-free growth (and if you have a way that makes savings a real return on your money, share it with us) and such plans simply look like a way to undermine the net.

    TRADE -- If you think that unfettered free trade hasn't undermined domestic job growth and job security by making outsourcing to foreign manufacturers and suppliers such an attractive byproduct, and that that hasn't affected the ability to plan, promote and gain more economic security in domestic jobs, I don't know what to tell you.

    UNIONS/LABOR -- Again, if you think it has been a good thing to reduce the bargaining power of nonmanagement personnel to increase wages and benefits, you are living in a cocoon that a majority of Americans do not.

    HEALTHCARE -- the system is broken, and until everyone puts in their share and costs are distributed across the board, those fortunate enough to have insurance (and jobs or opportunities to make their health insurance portable and consistent) will always be paying higher copays and premiums to make up for those who do not. You seem to think that, without change in this area, patients currently have the freedom to negotiate their health care and plans with health providers. I suggest to you that it is insurance companies and health care alliances that increasingly dictate both treatment and preventive medicine based on financial, not medical, feasibilities. And increasingly it is a hit in the pocketbook.

    So much for my middle age rant.
     
  27. TXBabe97

    TXBabe97 250+ Posts


     
  28. Wulaw Horn

    Wulaw Horn 1,000+ Posts

    Absolutely fantastic post laying out step by step why I think Obama is "wrong" on so many important issues.

    That said- I think I prefer Obama over McCain- at least I know that Obama is going to be a liberal and the dems will get any credit/blame that comes from that.

    On his positive changes- I hope that he can bring positive change in our racial discuassion and feelings in this country.

    Also- he is not a child of the 60's and his formative experience was not formed being a beatnick, draft dodging, dope smoking, counter culture, hippie. Maybe we can finally let some of the juvenile ******** of my parents generation die. I'm sick of the Vietnam war being fought and refought in our political landscape.

    If he brings about a positive change in race relations and a positive change away from baber boomer ******** I'm ok with him and that's a good presidency, even though I think he's wrong on all those issues the OP said. I might vote for him (or 3rd party) or not vote. Won't be voting for McCain.
     
  29. SomeMildLanguage

    SomeMildLanguage 500+ Posts

    Politically, we hear a lot about how Obama can capture the red states, independents, Republicans, and whatnot. I don't see that. But the truly new thing he does offer is that he simultaneously appeals to the important African-American bloc of the party AND the worldly/well-educated/wine-drinking bloc of the party. He's not really getting working class whites, especially white females, but he's sure getting the professors and members of the creative/intellectual/progressive left. Nobody has been able to pull that off before. And I think it's probably a good thing for the Democrats. You have constituencies that balance each other out and might temper the tendency to become a Lou Dobbs-style populist (which is how Democrats did so well in 2006 in the midwest). It almost represents a mini-realignment within the party.
     
  30. SDhorn

    SDhorn 250+ Posts

    If nothing else, I will be ecstatic when he changes the Bush policy of pre-emptive war (a policy that will likely cost 2 trillion dollars and 5,000 U.S. lives). Imagine if we had $500 billion of the $2 trillion for an economic stimulus package.

    He will pass a comprehensive immigration plan similar to the plan proposed by George Bush.

    His election will have a dramatic change as to how the U.S is perceived in the world. I am confident that there will be far fewer Muslim teenagers who decide to adopt a radical form of Islam than the current rate. Rumsfeld was not right about much, but he was correct that our current policy is creating many more terrorists than we can kill.

    He will help us continue to improve race relations in our country.

    He will improve health care in the U.S. and make it more affordable.

    He will begin to engage in earnest the rest of the world on a global warming treaty.

    He will pass PayGo so that the budget deficit will not continue to expand.

    He will pass legislation to restrict earmarks and with his oratorical skills, he will do a much better job of cutting pork than Bush, who had no impact at all.

    He will change the direction of the influence of PACs and Washington lobbyists which has exploded in the last 15 years. He of course will not eliminate the influence, but will fight for legislation to shine more light on the influence and at least will attempt to head it back in the right direction.

    In the next tax bill, he will decrease the marginal tax rate on dollars earned under $75K (note that those making over $200K would also benefit from such tax cut.

    In the next tax bill, he will raise marginal rates on each dollar earned over $200K back to pre-Bush levels.

    He will make sure that the Paris Hilton tax cut for the money she will receive from Daddy after he dies will not be extended. My guess is that a compromise will be achieved at around a $4-5M exemption per estate so a couple could shelter $10M before taxation would begin.

    He will change the current President’s inability to give a decent speech.

    He will inspire our kids to have empathy for others and to work to make our country better.

    He will restore honor to the federal prosecutors.

    He will appoint judges who will strike down legislation which is contrary to the Constitution.

    He will simply be a President who is very different from the President we have today. If you like the job Bush has done, you will not like Obama.
     

Share This Page