It's called being patient, you dumb Con-servatives!

My stars, watching the ranting and the rambling going on in the media and Wall Street, you'd think the Administration wasn't doing anything.  No wait...I take that back, watching the ranting and the rambling going on the media and Wall Street, you'd think the Administration was doing too little.  No wait....

There's more...

Still believe Obama would oppose '02 war vote?

Subtitle: How Hillary won the Primary

Right now it seems that the political atmosphere is ripe for a Democratic sweep in November.  I was among the conventional thinkers early on in this decade who wouldn't have predicted it so soon and certainly not this way:  Republican implosion mostly because of George Bush.   Yet the issues that seem to motivate the most fervent anti-bush sentiment here and on the 'net are almost universally supported by "national democrats".   Those are the people who perceive that they have a future as a party leader.  

For example, no serious person thinks Hillary would have voted against FISA had she been the Dem. nominee in waiting, but freed from "responsibility" she panders to the left.

The main issue that propelled Obama to being on the cusp of our next POTUS was that he "had the judgement" to be against the Iraq War when all of the seasonsed and experienced politicians got it wrong.   They enabled Bush, while Obama "took a bold stand".

I didn't believe it for one minute during the primaries.  Many on the Hillary side tried to show the flip-flops in 2004 and 2006 when it wasn't certain where the politics were on the issue.

But now the question for all democrats is:

Does anyone serious still believe Obama would have opposed the 2002 war resolution?

The evidence all points to a resounding NO!

Every instinct he has shown has been toward being a mainstream democrat.

There hasn't been 1 issue where he is willing to stand on his own and fight it out.

Take the "talk with Iran w/o preconditions" bit.   Once his aides and Obama finished explaining and "refining", it is hardly "change" or radically different from Bush or the bulk  of the Democratic Party.

same on FISA
same on Guns
same on every single major issue.

What we are left with is quite simple:

A mainstream left-leaning democrat who doesn't want the liberal label, whose biggest selling point is that he has black skin.

This in and of itself  represents real change from our nation's history.

For any real democrat like me, the bottom line is Obama is not only acceptable, he is great for the party.

He will maximize black turnout while disarming fears of wild-eyed liberals.

That is why any betting person would wager on an Obama-democratic surge in November once he turns the Speech machine back on.

No way to do that now and maintain it for months and months through the Olympics and the rest.

But I think at the least Obama Primary supporters should apologize to people like me who tried to tell you:

he's playing the race card
he's a typical politician

You still won.  Obama has brought me and must of us home to the Dem party.

But come on, admit it,

If I told you what the Dem. nominee would do for  the month after the primary in terms of positions on issues and "values" they wanted to project,

you'd get depress because you'd think

Hillary won!

Well  in a way she did.
and that is good  for the party and our nation.

There's more...

Obama:no move to center?Remember the book "King and King"

Yesterday Senator Obama:

rejected the "broader issue" that he's shifting to the center or flip-flopping. "The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me,"

This may be true on Iraq where the difference may be in tone and setting.

It may also be true on Guns where Obama stated earlier that he believed in an individual right to a gun but that D.C.'s law was Consistent with that. The focus was on the latter in the Primaries.   Now he ignores the second part of his earlier statements and focuses on the former.

This is Clintonian. It is really good!
----
There is another issue that has a little room to maneuver but not much.  

Obama in a debate supported a school's decision to teach a gay love story to second graders called""king and king"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=5366521

Over the past few weeks, Senator Obama has made an effort to appeal to middle America. I expect Senator Obama to have to move to the center on the issue of Gay Rights also. This will be necessary for a variety of reasons but especially because of a debate performance in 2007. There, Obama endorsed both explicity and implicity, Sen. Edwards' comments about it being proper for second graders to read/discuss a gay love story. In fact, Edwards went further and said he didn't feel it was his place to "impose" his views of right/wrong on his kids.

Newsflash to both Edwards/Obama: Parents are absolutely supposed to "impose" their views of right/wrong on kids. They are too young to know for themselves. They need protection. This is the bedrock of parent/children relationships. Also, we don't believe in letting schools decide moral issues, but rather parents deciding for their families. Interestingly if you read the entire transcript, Hillary Clinton was the closest of the 3 main contenders to realize how ridiculous they all sounded, though she too tried to pander to the left, albeit with a somewhat muted tone.
----

From September 26,2007 Democratic Candidates debate

Here's a question that was initially asked of John Edwards, and then forwarded to both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama (the 3 leading candidates at the time):

KING: Thanks, Tim.The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second-graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?

John Edwards' answer is important because Obama references it, so here is Edwards
(my bold):

EDWARDS: Yes, absolutely. What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with everyday, the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their lives.

EDWARDS: And I suspect my two younger children, Emma Claire,who's 9, and Jack, who's 7, will reach the same conclusion that mydaughter Cate, who's 25, has reached, which is she doesn't understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage. And she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue.So I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children.I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf ofthemselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, evenin -- did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough,but even in second grade to be exposed to all...

KING: Well, that's the point. It is second grade.

EDWARDS: ... those possibilities, because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of myfamily or my children, as my wife Elizabeth has spoken her own mind onthis issue. I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.

EDWARDS: But what I will do as president of the United States is I will lead an effort to make sure that the same benefits that areavailable to heterosexual couples -- 1,100 roughly benefits in thefederal government -- are available to same-sex couples; that we getrid of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act; that we get rid of "don'task/don't tell," which is wrong today and was wrong when it wasenacted back in the 1990s.I will be the president that leads a serious effort to deal withthe discrimination that exists today.

KING: Thank you.Senator Obama, you have young children at home. How do you feel about this?

OBAMA: You know, I feel very similar to John. You know, the fact is my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old I think are already aware that there are same-sex couples. My wife and I have talked about it. One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraidof people who are different, because there have been times in ourhistory where I was considered different, or Bill Richardson wasconsidered different.

OBAMA: And one of the things I think the next president has todo is to stop fanning people's fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided. And if we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance,then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful. And that I think is one of the most important things that thenext president can do, is try to bring us together, and stop trying tofan the flames of division that have become so standard in ourpolitics in Washington. That's the kind of experience, by the way,that we need to put an end to.

KING: Quickly, have you sat down with your daughters to talkabout same-sex marriage?

OBAMA: My wife has.

KING: She has. OK.
--------

Notice how both Edwards and Obama tried to switch the topic to "discrimination" and "toleration" rather than what the question was about: "acceptance" as a normal way of life in the public school curriculum whether you as a parent agree/disagree. I will be shocked at the Republican ineptitude if they don't identify this and magnify it for what it is: an example of left-wing elitism trying to supplant the traditional moral values of middle America. In addition, the idea that parents shouldn't be the controlling force but rather school boards and others is utterly objectionable

There's more...

Yes, I'm really a democrat

As Senator Obama continues to moderate his positions on many issues:

Today's installment is the declaration that "mental health" issues should not be used in the "health exceptions" to late-term abortions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires 20080703/obama-abortion/http://www.huff ingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080703/obama -abortion

BTW:  This is a rare example where I have disagreed with Obama's move to the center.   Also, with the talk yesterday about the war and maybe curtailing his withdrawal strategy, the Senator may want to take a break from this strategy for awhile.

But anyway,...

I realize Senator Obama is no where near the line, but
I got to thinking, at what point am I or anyone no longer a Democrat to the extreme ideologues here at mydd?
---------------------
Here's my list of important issues and what people generally consider them to represent on the political spectrum:

1.  abortion rights:      far left
 I support without qualification

2.  gun control:          far left
 I support strict gun licensing, registration and ability of govts to enact strict gun control where it makes sense.  Sometimes the overall safety of the community can be improved with gun control bans even though it harms an individual's personal right to protect themselves in particular situations.

3.  death penalty:        moderate right
Against it in the current system where the justice system is clearly broken, and not fair.   But would support a well-defined system that worked both in terms of correct id and quick resolutions.

4.   education:    extreme right wing
totally against our centrally planned public school systems and favor numerous choices including vouchers, charter schools, home schools, church schools, and ensuring parents control as much as possible rather than a govt. board

5.   trade:   moderate left wing
Support fair trade that includes labor and environmental standards that seek to raise the standards, spread the prosperity and prevent a race downward even though this would raise prices and lower our projected standard of living.

6.  tort reform:  moderate right wing
Support reform that protects companies and individuals who are making a good-faith effort at their jobs from being sued when something goes wrong. So for instance, if a doctor does everything they can, yet something happens to the patient, the standard to sue should be whether they knowingly did something wrong.  This goes also for medicines that wind up having bad side effects.  As long as there wasn't any fraud or deception, there shouldn't be any lawsuits.

7.  taxes:      

I think taxes should be kept as low as possible and replaced with more progressive ways to collect revenue that is needed. We can use auctions, lotteries, and other ways that involve people volunteering their funds rather than forcing them to pay.  For instance, the Super Bowl sells out every year, the govt. could auction off special tickets and use that money for tax revenue.

I reject the notion that people who make more money should pay a higher percentage of taxes.  The key should be everyone shouldering the benefits they receive from society.

8.   gay rights:  extreme right wing

I'm in support of traditional moral values, and believe we as a society need to promote strong healthy normal marriage, strong role models and a civil society on t.v., and good values throughout society.

I am in general against the gay rights lobby except when they talk about protecting people from violence and discrimination in the workplace.  They are right in those cases.

9.   social security:    right wing

I support every American have a personal account that can be passed on to the next generation.  It should include a guaranteed part that is used for the individual and than passed on to the next generation, and a part that can be invested in numerous legitimate vehicles.

I believe social security should continue to be mandatory, but updated to fit a more modern world.

10.  foreign policy:   moderate left

I believe in having a big military budget that helps us maintain the strongest military on earth.  We should use it to promote good around the world, but mainly to find adversaries before they find us.  We need to be realistic about what we get into in terms of the longer term implications of what we do.  I supported Afganistan, against Iraq, against Iran.  All, based on what was/is in our best interests.

My point is there are a few issues that seem to be litmus test:

pro choice
gay rights
against vouchers

while others aren't

gun control
faith based policies
supporting a strong military
death penality

I think both parties need to included honest people who generally agree with them.  Since neither side has a coherent philosophy, I don't see how more people here and elsewhere aren't constantly challenge our party leaders.  

Our failure to do so harms us all as a nation and I hope we start taking inventory of our positions and advocating for them regardless of who we take on as allies on a particular issue.

I am a proud democrat who is fighting for change in my party.

There's more...

Obama should mandate his National Service Plan

Yesterday, Senator Obama returned to an effective criticism of the Bush administration and a proposal to "offer" national service to Americans as an opportunity to serve their country.
The context includes the ridiculous position of the Bush admin. that Americans can fight the terrorists by going shopping and continuing their normal lives.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/0 7/obama_issues_new_call_for_nati.php

This is an accurate critique of Bush since 9/11.  The failure of the President to galvanize the American people to fight the terrorists in real and important ways should be highlighted and rectified.

Senator Obama is on the right track concerning National Service except the proposal should go further to being either mandatory or highly incentivized in some way.

For example:

In order to qualify for Federal student loans, pell grants, tax exemptions and deductions on your taxes, or other public benefits, people should have to Serve their nation in a defined manner that can be quanified.

We live in the best nation ever created, and to keep it that way we need sacrifice, not just from those who volunteer for the military, but also we need various types of assistance from numerous people.

I have no idea whether this is popular with anyone, but I do know it is the right thing.  We are all used to 100's of t.v. channels, cellphones for the whole family, a wide variety of choices for every meal, and practically no limits on our energy use.  As Americans, 9/11 should have been a wake-up call in a big way that "nothing is free" especially not freedom.

I believe Obama knows for this proposal to really matter there needs to be some mandates somehow.

Once again though, Obama is on the right track and is showing he has the right instincts to be POTUS.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads