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...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
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?
When did thoughtfulness, in this case about a lapel pin, become a character flaw?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02
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:
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
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
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
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?
What are your thoughts and comments on the following column:
Shortcut to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02
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/viewArtic
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?
Friday, February 8, 2008
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
--------
http://www.realclearpolitics
--------
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
