The coming months...

I was driving home today listening to talk radio, as a caller was exclaiming how it's only been 4 years since 9-11 (caller was a bit off on this), and she can't believe that we would elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama. I expect we have only heard the beginning of racism in this campaign. And it brought to light some of my deepest feelings about this election.

Yes, there is the risk, maybe a great risk, that Obama will lose just because of his skin color or name. He stands for some of the highest principles we have, that of the self made man, and not judging a man by how he was born. They are high because they are so easily knocked down. In a sense, I welcome all of this ignorance. It is an opportunity, an opportunity for the highest principles to be shown on sharp contrast with the fear this woman displayed. I've been reading about Gandhi and Martin Luther King recently. The idea of meeting violence with non-violence, of not humiliating your opponent to allow him to keep his dignity. Of the racist Southern governor who responded to non-violent protests & prayer with fire hoses and police dogs, but the firemen fell back weeping at the obviousness of their wrong.

I believe that this type of opportunity to change hearts and minds will be present over the coming months. That to me, and probably many of Obama's supporters, rings truer to my heart than policies, cult of personality, etc. The "Change" so often spoken about has a much different meaning in this context. And the forces against this type of change are even greater than the standard type of change. And that's exactly why you may see an unprecedented movement behind Mr. Obama, as well as against him. It may turn out to be a hell of a cause...

Thoughtfulness = Characater flaw?

Pops,
When did thoughtfulness, in this case about a lapel pin, become a character flaw?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?hp

Seems like Obama's opponents' attempts to discredit him have a hint of bitter desperation. Stuff like this contrasts Obama from others in my mind - he just continues with his message of positive change. Maybe there is something to his message of transcending traditional negative politics. What's your opinion - is Obama special, or are people like me simply delusional as many curmudgeons are saying?

Hi Dan-

The pin deal is just politics. Would not get upset about it. My feeling is if McCain was not running I would vote for Obama over all the other candidates. In fact I voted for Obama when he ran for US Senator. I do feel that Obama is in for a real shock if he wins in trying to push his agenda. More tax, spend and regulate with a government answer for every problem won't fly in the real world. Also I feel that his voting record and who he supports paints a different picture than what he preaches. He has added 24 earmarks to legislation in his short time in the Senate (McCain has never added an ear mark in all his years in the Senate). Obama has endorsed the most corrupt regime in Cook County government in the last election, cozied up to indicted lobbyist Tony Rezko, and has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Also his cut and run policy in Iraq could be disastrous. I do think in the general election in the fall he will softed his views on many things and become more of a centralist than a left wing liberal.

The debate tonight should be interesting. It could be Billary's (not a typo) last stand. Look for her to come out firing bullets at the chosen one. If she comes across to vindictive it will really backfire on her.

Here is a good NY Times column on McCain by David Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26brooks.html?ref=opinion

The fall campaign will be real interesting and look forward to further dialog with you.

Curmudgeon DAD


Hah, I like that, "the chosen one", sticking to your curmudgeon persona:) You make good points, and it helps me be more level-headed.

While Obama does use earmarks, he places in the bottom quarter of all senators, and I believe only uses them for schools & hospitals. McCain has the upper hand here, he is one of the only senators who does not use earmarks - but perhaps that is in reaction to his involvement in the Keating Five scandal in the 80s.

So none are perfect. But Obama has consistently shown me that he thinks independently, and thinks things through. I'll join the multitudes who have been moved by the "chosen one's" oratory. And that's not such a bad thing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html

Iraq Withdrawal

Hi Big D,

What are your thoughts and comments on the following column:

Shortcut to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?ref=opinion

DAD

Pops,
I do challenge some of Brook's assumptions. He posits that the centrists Democrats and Independents will conclude that we need to stay in Iraq another 5 years. Do you think the majority of Americans want this? Of course the Bush backers and the Army generals in Iraq will go crazy over the idea of withdrawing. But my opinion is that faced with either staying in Iraq indefinitely, or getting out, most Americans will choose withdrawal. They in fact already do (only 1 in 5 Americans want to see large numbers of troops in Iraq 2 years from now):
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977256747&grpId=3659174697241980&nav=Groupspace
So it seems weird to me that David Brooks is saying that the country will be torn apart again if we withdraw.

Second, he says that the Dems are promising too much - both a balanced budget and more social programs. I'm not an expert on the matter, but it seems obvious to me what Brooks is missing. The military and Iraq budget have been what's put us in debt over the past 8 years. Reduce those very huge costs, and it seems like you'll have alot of money left over for alot of things. Not a very technical analysis I'll admit, but it makes sense to me - how bout you?

Good thoughts on your behalf. I worry that if we pull out and Iraq implodes that Iran (our biggest threat, will fill the void and then we have a much worse problem). How do we prematurely pull out and not risk this? I do believe the war was a mistake, however now that we are in their would hate to see an Obama throw in the towel type of pull out.

Yes the war has taken a huge chuck of the budget which could pay for some of these social programs, however the deficit is there now and more expanding social programs will only add to it. That is the problem I have with the Democratic candidates………a social program for everything. This country will implode if this becomes reality.

Pops,
Official cost, Iraq War in 2009: $170 billion ( true number is probably much more)
Yearly Cost of Obama's Health Care Plan: $102 billion

That leaves 70 billion extra dollars if we leave Iraq and provide universal health care. Even if the Dems have a social program for everything, nothing could amount to this. To my knowledge though, health care is the only major social program spoke about. Can you clarify any?

Now if you would rather spend your tax $ on the Iraq war than health care, that's a different argument. But I bet you spend alot of $ every month on health insurance, and if it gets reduced alot through Obama's plan, you may not mind paying your taxes as much...

Well , what are you thoughts on Obama’s plan to pull out of Iraq?

I'm not one of those that believes withdrawal is absolutely the best answer. The more I think about it, the worse every option is.

McCain has no plan for victory...he just offers more of the same. And the penalties for staying the course are high. Our allies are deserting us in Afghanistan, because of the continuing unpopularity of Iraq. The damage to our national prestige and foreign policy continues. There hasn't been any political progress in Iraq, and without political progress the military gains are very temporary. Meanwhile US treasure and lives keeps getting wasted, what does McCain say, for the next 100 years?

Withdrawing has so many risks. Iraq could descend into civil war. But again I hark back to the bi-partisan Iraq committee last year. They recommended a phased withdrawal, working in conjunction with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, to stabilize it. It would be admitting Iraq to be more of a failure like Vietnam. But we survived Vietnam, regrouped, and regained our standing in the world. Why can't we again?

One thing is for certain

With Romney gone, the three remaining candidates are all agree on one issue - outlawing torture by our military (who never wanted to do it anyways), and re-instating Habeus Corpus. Many of us can celebrate now, and look forward to regaining pride in our country. It's the constitution, stupid!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/bush_tortures_americas_integri.html
--------

Agreed it is a good issue to put behind us. I look forward to the campaign between McCain and Billary or Obama. I think it will have very interesting debates.

DAD

Hanging with Obama

Hey fam,
Just wanted to share my impressions of seeing Obama today at the University of Denver... First off, it was crazy the number of people there. I've never been to a presidential campaign stop, but I doubt that candidates normally get this much interest. There were multiple lines, each stretching around the entire campus. The arena holds 4 or 5 thousand, at least 20 thousand showed up! I got there late, but managed to finagle my way into the main arena. Everyone else sat in an overflow gym or on the soccer field. I guess Obama spoke for a couple minutes to them and then came to speak to us in the main event.

Lots of electricity, and Caroline Kennedy introduced him. It was cool to see the connection in history between JFK's daughter and the man deemed his successor in a sense.
See http://www.newsweek.com/id/106240 for more about Caroline's connection.

It took Obama many minutes to walk the hundred feet to the stage. He was greeting *everyone* along the way. Now I knew why it took so long for this thing to get started... He gave a strong speech, I'll give it a 7 or an 8. He didn't completely bring the house down, but the man can speak. I'm a little skeptical about all this talk of change (that's the campaign moto and something cliched too much)...change to what? But he did have more flesh to his proposed policies than expected. And one of his themes I'll remember is that it's not just enough to improve the policies, we need to change the politics that made Bush's failed policies possible - ie. special interests, attack ads, etc. And I think that overall Obama's run a campaign different in that sense than we're used to.

The day was notable as it was the first time Caroline Kennedy made a campaign stop with Obama. Also, John Edwards withdrew, and Obama praised him, along with even giving Hillary some praise. That didn't last...with McCain looking like the Republican winner, Obama's beginning to frame Hillary as not being very different from McCain - their voting records are similar on Iraq, Iran, etc. He presented himself as the candidate that contrasts with McCain.

So there ya have it, there didn't seem to be anything revelational to get super excited about, but it was a cool experience. The last time I was in the same arena, it was for Peace Jam over a year ago. During that event, I listened to multiple Nobel Peace Prize winners talk about how we need to get our country back on track, re-instantiate Habeus Corpus, shut down Guantamo, etc. Now here I was, in the same stadium, listening to our possible future president talk about doing all of those same things. Now that's neat...

Love, Dan

Dad straightens me out, Mom keeps it real

Pops,
Question, do you think Bush is to be blamed for the recession that is almost upon us? Specifically, it is said that Bush's strong belief in deregulation is at the root of the mortgage crisis that is bringing the economy down.

On the topic of Bush's deregulation, it's also said to be responsible for the toys full of lead, and poisoned pet food we're seeing coming in from China.

What do you think? If you do think Bush's deregulation gets good share of the blame, how come more isn't made of it?

Wow – Piling on ole George W. Let’s see what else we can blame him for: the lousy season the Bears had, the crisis of too many horses in the US (the animal activist closed down the horsemeat slaughter houses and now tons of horses are starving because owners can’t afford to take care of them), the crummy roads in Lake County, the transit crisis in Illinois (due to a bonehead governor we have), the cold and flu season, the lousy television etc, etc.

What recession? The Democrats are praying for one to skew the November election. A sure way to get one is to keep talking up that we are going to have one (thanks Hillary).

I am neither a Republican nor Democrat, but a proud independent voter. I have voted for both parties in the past. A big concern I have is too much government regulation. A free market is what made this country strong and although it is not a perfect system it is better than any other that nations have come up with. The root of the mortgage crisis is pure greed. I don’t think you can regulate that. Just like the 7 year run the stock market had in 1993-2000 eventually greed burst the bubble. The market corrected itself and will so with the mortgage mess. Blame the brokers, banks, mortgage companies, the bond insurance companies and the borrowers for not paying attention.

In regards to lead in toys, it is shear folly to blame Bush on that. The toy companies have known about lead for years and need to police their own product. Would you like the government to OK every product you produce (e.g. making sure your code does not infringe on existing copy rights etc.)? The more bureaucrats involved the worse the process (look at the corrupt city of Chicago that has more officials in jail than any in America). Again the market will correct itself.

The new economy we are experiencing is not what we had in the past and changes have been happening since the Civil War. It is an uncomfortable economy for many or most, but more regulation is a sure way to make things even worse. In listening to many Democratic candidates they seem to want to put trade walls up around the U.S. History has shown that is a sure way to recession and depression.

Some things I would like our politicians to do (either party), but they don’t have the guts to try:

1. Why does not one candidate talk about eliminating the duties on Brazilian ethanol? It is cheaper to make than ours, more efficient to produce, but no body wants to upset the farm lobby (Iowa Caucus).

2. Why don’t we put a tax on imported oil from the Middle East? With the money generated lower our other taxes, pay for health care, education, energy research and the added results of more conservation.

I think in general whoever gets voted in things really won’t change. Change is the favorite word of all these candidates, but everyday lives will hardly be affected by what the Federal Government does. I think the future means more sacrifice for everyone, as the world gets more populated and the limited energy resources become scarcer. Don’t believe any politician that promises to take us back to the good ole days (whenever that was).

We may not agree on many of these things, but it is great to have the dialog.

DAD

Dad,
Cool, I respect your opinion, that's why I asked.

I don't have a clear opinion on government regulation, but I doubt that the Bush administration would have ever done things like require seatbelts for cars. Would the market have corrected itself on that? Or would Bush done something like create the SEC, a regulatory commission that was key to reviving the trust that got us out of the Great Depression. These are two examples of government regulation that we can't live without. In my opinion, we need a good balance of free market and regulation.

As for trade barriers, here I disagree with someone like John Edwards. I am for globalism, it's an extension of the changes we've had in our own economy, where people lose their old jobs and have to re-train or innovate, being positive in the long run. From what I understand, Obama does not want more trade barriers, just rules that our trade partners need to adhere to standards on human rights and the environment, and that appeals greatly to me!

Change IS possible with the right leader, it's happened in our past and it will happen again. We are all very cynical because of the past however many years of bad politics, so on that Obama may have stuck a note...

Hey Buddy, I know that these are important topics--but let's hear about what's REALLY important---how are the wedding plans coming?????????????? Are Lindsay's parents giving you any input? At some point it might be a good idea for the parents to talk?!?!?!? We're home if you or Lindsay want to talk. Love, Mum

Why I'm voting for Obama

Hey Family,
The reason I'm voting for Obama is the strength of his story. The true leader has endured hardship, gone on a journey of some sorts, and come out the other side wiser and with victorious self knowledge. Bush II had shades of this story, but his was stunted due to the grasp of power he too easily received from his father. Hillary was a natural over-achiever, and achieved many things on her own. Her trials seem to have come while the First Lady, but she has not been very forthcoming about them, and she too received her power a bit too easily riding on her husband's coattails.

Obama rose up from the ashes of his former life. He has traveled down the wrong path, had a spiritual revelation of sorts, and become a community leader in Chicago. He did not attend an Ivy League school straight out of college paid for by his parents. He received a scholarship to Harvard while already a grown man in his late 20s, and once there became president of the student body by his own talent.

One of the more interesting dynamics of this is his admission of drug use. Bill Clinton smoked pot, then denied it, then tried to avoid accountability with the "I didn't inhale" garbage. There are many tales of Bush II's cocaine and alcohol abuse. He flat out denied the cocaine thing - too politically sensitive - and rightly used his alcohol abuse as part of his story of spiritual change. Obama is the first major presidential candidate that I know of to be forthcoming about his drug use right off the bat. In fact he lays it out in graphic detail right in his book. It will be interesting if the American people reward this candor, or penalize it, and thus condemning ourselves to more shadiness from our leaders in the future.

Whatcha think? Love, Dan

Hi Dan-

I think your points are valid and Obama would make the strongest candidate for the Democrats. I would love to see McCain get the nod from the Republicans. It would be a great race between the two bests candidates that speak there mind, not sound bites. Although I am not for the war in Iraq, McCain was the only candidate on both sides that was in favor of the surge which has been our best strategy so far to ending the conflict. I think he has a lot of political capital for taking this early stance. Also these two candidates lead the polls when asking voters who has the best chance of winning the general election. A lot of primary voters will be voting for the best candidate to win the general election (not the primary).

DAD