Golbez
Dirty Bastid
 From: Michigan
Registered: 06-20-05
Posts: 1770
|
|
You have presented one of the better arguments against Obama, though I disagree with much of it. The Ayers thing is as flimsy as McCain's campaign. So if that's what you stake a candidacy on (as McCain has done this past week), it pretty much validates my views of the Republican party.
Obama is a new Senator, so he doesn't have an extensive record, nationally. But certainly there's experience and judgment in his past. Here's a brief over-haul of Obama's US Senate record - http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter ... ama-bills/ To say he has no senate credentials to speak of is such a degree of hyperbole. It's just plain untrue.
Yes, he voted present 129 times as an Illinois Senator, out of the 4,000 votes he made over his 8 years. That's about 3% of his votes, which I'm not going to gripe about. 129 votes in 8 years. Fact check info - http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/h ... esent.html
Voting 'present' does seem like a bit of a cop-out, I'll concede that, but the republican base is eager to jump all over this while ignoring similar issues with their candidate. And to vote present, one must BE present. Let's check out the 110th congress, the standing congress now - http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... e-missers/
Since '06, McCain has cast 235 votes, to the 420 he's missed. 420 votes. And in 2 years. Granted, he's running to be president, and schedules conflict. But his primary campaign was shorter than Obama's and he's missed an extra 117 votes, in 2 years, compared to Obama's 129 present votes over 8 years. Voting present 129 times can't possibly be an issue to change your vote against Obama.
And McCain has no executive experience either. I don't hold this against him, because he has informed thoughts on a broad array of issues. As does Obama. To me, experience is the tool you use to evaluate and respond to situations as they arise. When I hear Obama explain his foreign policy, his answers cover a broad spectrum of topics condensed into something that is thoughtful and coherent. When Governor Palin answers a question on the Bailout, her answer, too, covers a broad spectrum of topics. But it shouldn't. And it doesn't make sense. It's a puppeteered response that she herself can't understand. She can't answer critical questions, or even non-critical ones like what news source(s) she reads.
Though you're right that he did get his Senate competitor opponents to drop out based on technicalities, something to do with the signatures they needed to run were faulty. It's hard to blame him for following the rules though. Then the one guy he ran against, he beat by a landslide. And I think his motivation to run for presidency came after he became a senator. From all the news bio reports I've seen of him, it's something people were pressuring him to do during his speeches, when he began to heavily consider it. It's not something he had originally intended on doing, especially so soon.
And change from the Bush administration to an Obama administration WOULD be change, as evidenced from his party-line voting. He votes party lines more than McCain does, true. But that presents the stark change. His ideas present the stark change. His platform is the stark change. If many of his policies are to be enacted, that would be a phenomenal change from what we have now. And if you're saying he has no record to stand on, and you're endorsing Palin, well that just plain doesn't make sense.
I would like sources for this Maureen Dowd thing. But really, that's just silly. If anything, it would be a PC argument over the ears thing, something that wouldn't phase him in the least with dealing with rogue world leaders. He would certainly be a better foreign policy commander than McCain. McCain's is to foreign policy and Iraq what Giuliani is to 9/11. Iraq is nearly his complete focus and answer. Let's shun all the other rogue leaders whilst we deal with Iraq, including - evidently - Spain. Obama has a much more broad view, and understands working with other countries so that we can build a global effort.
And the socialism issue, what a farce. Pretty much, your define socialism based on how the government spends its money. It's cool that we spend $10 billion a month in Iraq, even today - regardless that Al Queda and the Taliban are harbored in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but if we were to spend that money on health care coverage for the 40-60 million uninsured Americans, it's all of a sudden socialism. Socialism that would reduce the cost of insurance because there would be lower ER bills to people without insurance that are covered by tax payers, which long term, would start to serve as a preventative health care measure. Rather than treating the plagued, you'd start to prevent diseases altogether - something everyone agrees is far cheaper.
Or is it his tax plan that you call socialism?
That's not socialism either. It's reverting back to the tax plans Clinton had. Something like a 28% tax for the rich, rather than the 25% it is now. Everyone's still paying taxes; there's just a smaller percentage for the lower classes. If you make $250,000, your taxes will go up 12 bucks. I dunno how you're going to survive!
Here's health care analysis, take your pick - http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter ... alth-care/
And here's tax analysis - http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter ... sue/taxes/
Of which, this is a good (and short) one - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/724/
Nothing about it is socialism. He's not paying them. They're just paying less. The government is in charge, Democrat or Republican. But the Republican government expanded the largest government we've ever seen, with the greatest deficits we've ever seen. And probably the greatest botched responses we've ever seen. So I'm missing something as to why a Democratic president would be worse. Especially with someone as sharp as Obama.
_______________________________________
|
|
Though you might remember loosely where my allegiances last lied. Regardless of your take on anything though, I'd like to offer some non-partisan resources for various things like fact checking what they say on campaigns, their positions on particular issues, what the polls look like across the US, etc. And we can open up the floor to a little lively debate, perhaps. I've been following the campaign vigorously, watching all the debates, and conventions, etc, and I'm willing to discuss any thoughts you have on them, though I don't wish to provoke and incite craziness, at least from the onset. Now then, some links I find pretty useful and check (semi) regularly:
