Obama’s Win Not Historic Enough

Now that Obama has won the Democratic nomination, the media is falling all over itself to give homage. Yes, it is a truly historic event, after all he is the first African-American nominated by a major party for president of the United States. Unfortunately, the nomination isn’t historic enough.

The reason why I say it isn’t historic enough is because if Obama doesn’t win the White House, the argument will be America is still a racist country.  If he does win, it will be because people foolishly believed that government is the answer.  So in a typical catch-22, we are wrong if we don’t and wrong if we do.

Let me provide a few reasons why it is wrong for Obama to be president.  First, he is prejudiced against young people. Prejudiced? you ask? Yes. He is. He believes that a young person can be killed by another person just because it is unwanted and young. It is called being pro-abortion.  Don’t believe me? Check out the endorsement by National Abortion Rights Action League  http://naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr_05042008_obamaendorsement.html .

Second, he believes in big government solutions. That is no surprise; he is a liberal. (But people do forget it because his rhetoric is so lofty and vague; a quick cure is to ask, “Who will pay for this? If you think it is just the wealthy, you are wrong. Anyone who earns money, in the government’s eyes, is wealthy).  Liberals are always generous with other people’s money. Besides doesn’t “Big brother” know how to take care of us? Isn’t government’s job to punish the producers of society, and redistribute the wealth to others, while making sure it consumes a large portion of it to keep its own machine running?

Third, Obama may build bridges in the future between opposing groups, but don’t look for them during his time in the Senate. Don’t be swayed by all this nice sounding talk of how he will “bring people together.” Unless you really believe he had an epiphany during his run for presidency. For his actions in the senate demonstrate that his record is one of the most liberal in the senate. Don’t see much bi-partisan work there. But hey, I believe people can change. The question is will his present rhetoric match his future behavior? I doubt it, as his past shows otherwise. But I could be wrong. The problem is though, should we vote for a president based on a recent conversion experience? Would you hire a worker that way if you knew you would be stuck with him for four years? Global scholars occasionally view publisher site using hooked up causes.

If Obama wins, it will be historic but only the sense that color/race is no longer a barrier to high office. An important milestone in race relations to be sure given America’s regrettable racist history. I just wish the change was deeper by extending to the notion that Government’s job is not to nanny us. I wish his call for unity was based on the fundamental principles of personal responsibility, law, and private property. That a safety net should not be an escalator. That government doesn’t have to rescue everyone from the effects of their own bad decisions. That government should help the truly destitute not those unwilling to endure hard work.  Unfortunately, Obama will bring us back to the time of the 1970’s when Democrats ruled all the seats of government and implemented tax and spend policies that made your head spin.  I would like to be able to vote for an African American who said, that he or she would help liberate me from the slave ownership of a government taxation program that was out of control. Now that is the kind of change, I could really believe in.

  1. The last eight years of right wing US rule have have given the world an ‘illegal, immoral and unnecessary war’ which the American people were deceived into supporting, the abuse by the US of an old ally, many thousands of dead and maimed, ‘Gitmo’ & Abu Grieb, torture, kangaroo courts rather than recognition of the International Court of Justice, the end of the test ban treaty, an economic policy which threatens to break down the world economy, and an irresponsible failure to recognise the dangers associated with global warming.

    The government during this period has conducted itself in such a way that the US fulfills its own definition of a ‘rogue state’.

    Any government in the US would be better for the world than the grossly immoral one which is shortly to end. A relatively young, idealistic person would certainly be better than one who promises more of the same and who has already shown an alarming ‘flexibility’ of principles in his bid to gain election.


  2. Right wing U.S. That is a bit over the top. George Bush was elected on the platform of staying out of foreign entanglements. Then 911 happened. I don’t think the world has properly understood how much that event changed him.

    I will take your comments as hyperbolic. I hope you really didn’t think that a Kim Jung Il government in the U.s. would be an improvement. Or is that what you actually want to say?

    Not sure what the rant about the world economy was supposed to signify. It is not in danger of breaking down. So I don’t know what sort of scaremongering paper you have been reading.

    Yes, war is an ugly thing. Abu Graib was regrettable and wrong. But let’s not confuse humiliation with the agony of having your head cut off by sawing. Many people disagree with the war in Iraq. Many people also don’t understand war in the first place. I have written about war in previous blogs. Unfortunately, countries make mistakes just like people do.

    As for idealism, I don’t have a problem with idealism. My problem is that Obama’s ideals are just wrong. As for McCain, you are quite right. He is not Jesus Christ. I think you are correct that Obama has not be as “flexible.” The only problem with Obama is that he has not been forthcoming about how liberal he actually is. I look forward to the public getting to “know” just how radical he really is.

    As for international justice, where does one look to find that? When Jesus comes, we will have it. But what do you suggest can be practically done in the mean time?

  3. It would be ‘a bit over the top’ to refer to the US as ‘right wing’. It is not much of a stretch to characterize the last eight years of Dubbya and his cronies in that way. Look what they have done and what they stand for: unlimited spending on war and the military machine, contempt for your congress, opposition to a national system of medicare, failure to help out after the New Orleans disaster, and rigging the court system to their own advantage. These are just the items that come to mind; I’m sure there are more.

    Bush & Co. may have been elected on a platform of avoidance of foreign entanglements (the right will say anything to get elected), but when 911 occurred it was seen by many of them as an opportunity not to be missed. They attacked a country that had nothing to do with 911. To gain popular support they launched a spectacular campaign of misinformation and made claims that they they could not prove, and have since been shown to be false.

    You mentioned Kim Jung Il, not me. Is this because you see such similarities between him and the present Bush that he naturally came to your mind? Any one of the primary candidates of either of your principle political parties would probably be less dishonest than Bush and hence would be an improvement.

    Obama looks best to me. He is fresh, idealistic and less hide-bound than any of the others. So far as I can tell he has good policies. What makes you say he is not Jesus Christ? Has he claimed to be? Radical and liberal are not the same. You say he has not been forthcoming about how liberal he is. Do you know how liberal he is? I may come back to this on another occasion.

    The US is still probably the world’s greatest economy, but by sqandering the surpluses of the previous administration and creating a vast national debt, it endangers its own economy and, because it has been so dominant, the economies of other nations also. What will happen if other countries begin to spend those dollars the US has spread so lavishly around the world? Worse still, what will happen if the US$ comes to be seen as an inferior currency and is no longer acceptable? The Bush government is a danger to the world economy.

    The economic conduct of the Bushites is not unusual with right of centre governments. They like to wear the mantle of fiscal responsibility during campaigns, but once in power they lower taxes and spend like crazy. This allows them to campaign later on ‘smaller government’, no medicare, nothing for anything worthwhile that might actually benefit people. After all, ”Where’s the money going to come from’?

    Yes, war is an ugly thing, especially when it is illegal and unnecessary and untold numbers of innocent men, women and children are killed and maimed physically and mentally.

    No system of justice is perfect, but that does not mean that people of good will should not elect governments that will attempt to create ‘justice for all’. It is a rightist cop out to imply that since there will be no perfect justice until the second coming, we should not bother to try for it. The US has deliberately tried to scuttle the development of a system of international justice. It did not want US citizens to have to face an international court – particularly not Cheneys, Rumsfelts and others of their kind.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.