A Note On Obama
A note on Obama: It seems to me that there isn’t enough evidence that Obama will compromise with conservatives or govern in a more moderate way, unlike what some believe. Moreover, most of the evidence points in the opposite direction (because his relatively short voting record shows a liberal slant).
This is an issue I feel quite strongly about and, sadly, that sometimes causes me to be a bit ’short’ (with that I mean very dismissive of a person). I realize that, it’s one of my major (blogging) flaws. I especially feel strongly about this because I think it will happen foreign policy wise. In my opinion, a liberal foreign policy will prove disastrous. Especially when we talk about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, andsoforth (I’m admittedly hawkish on these issues), but also with regards to Iraq (Bowers’ reasoning is exactly the opposite of mine: I think Clinton did well, whereas Obama proved to be a true liberal with regards to foreign policy, and a dove at that).
The problem is that Obama could be using rhetoric to mislead people into thinking he’s more moderate than he really is. That doesn’t mean that people who take him at his word(s) are stupid, it just means that he could very well be doing what most politicians do- telling people what they want to hear.
This is why I don’t buy it without proof- if others choose to believe it, that doesn’t make them dumb but it does indicate a higher amount of trust than I’m willing to give… especially to a politician and especially to a politician with the ambition to become the most powerful person in the world (save God).
You know, the primaries are not about picking a president. They’re about narrowing down the choices. I have the same concerns regarding Obama as you do — I’ve just come down differently on whether he deserves the Democratic nomination. I think he makes a better candidate than Clinton. Once the nomination process is over, we’ll have ample time to get to know Obama better (should he get the nom). At that point, I can decide if he would be bad for foreign policy or if such fears are unfounded.
Alan, I’m not so sure you do have the same concerns as Michael - didn’t you write yesterday that you are "impressed with his character" and that you "could certainly end up voting for him in the general election"? Neither of these jibe with what I had taken Michael’s view of Obama to be, and your implicit claim (one that totally floors me) that Obama is "a man capable of transcending the hollow, nasty, pessimistic politics of the last twenty years and pushing our government and other leaders towards a more civil, more earnesty optimistic future" seems totally irreconcilable to what I had thought Michael has said (and certainly with what I’ve said) about him.
I think most of us tend to think this is an extremely important election, which makes it a lot harder for me to agree with what you are saying here, Alan. It’s hard to sit back and stay neutral or even to compliment someone from the party whose views you don’t share, if you feel that this person represents the candidate from that party who could do more harm. And in Obama’s case, if you specifically feel as Michael does that he’s successfully convincing people that he’s more of a moderate than he really is, you get concerned about that because waiting to try to dissuade people of that opinion during the general campaign may well be too late. Obama’s magnetism seems to be building in momentum rather than receding.
And I’m not even saying that as my own opinion (I honestly don’t know what I think at this point) but I’m don’t agree that it makes sense to wait and then perhaps decide that you oppose him later.
For people who feel the main problem in our country today is divisive politics, it makes sense to say you favor Obama even if you don’t agree with his ideology. But if your main concern is about an issue where ideology and policy matter, then you have to be more skeptical of him. I think that’s what Michael’s trying to point out in this post, that foreign policy is that defining issue for him.
BTW, well written post, Michael.
Actually, I think Michael and I do have very similar concerns about Obama (foreign policy is even my number 1 concern). The difference is, Michael thinks Obama could be using rhetoric to mislead people and I think Obama very well could be sincere. At this point, we’re both using disclaimers in our language meaning neither of us have come to a decisive conclusion. I could still end up in Michael’s corner on this — although it’s looking like we’ll be ending up on different sides.
Interestingly, on the Republican side, Michael and I are divided as well. Except, in that case, I’m the one that’s completely unconvinced by Michael’s candidate of choice. I see Romney as much more likely to be a phony than a good conservative leader.
I say it’s interesting because, based on what I’ve read Michael write on issues, he and I are not too far apart politically and yet we’re seeing completely different things in this election.
But Alan, sincere is even worse. If Obama’s rhetoric is disingenuous, that doesn’t make him any worse than any other politician - of course it exposes his "new kind of politics" as a particularly brazen self-serving lie, but still, in all, a politician. But if he’s sincere - gadzooks, that would mean he’s actually dumb enough to believe the line he’s selling! That strikes me as being even worse, and considerably more dangerous.
Simon, either that’s incredibly cynical or we’re having a communication break down. You don’t think there’s any use in even trying to bridge some of the divides? You’d actually like Obama MORE if he were just a snake oil salesman? If that’s your logic, then I’m backed me into a corner. If I try to defend Obama, I’m dumb enough to buy into his line. I’m not always right, but I usually try not to be stupid.
I imagine I’m misinterpreting your objection to "sincere." Or your misinterpreting my use of the word. My attraction to Obama is based on the guess (tinged with hope) that he has the capacity to clean up some of the infighting between Americans. He is an incrementalist who, as an Illinois legistlator, showed a willingness to settle for less than his ultimate goal if that meant getting more people to sign on to the idea. That’s not an incredibly glamorous execution of "unity" but it certainly has its uses.
I’m probably not the best proponent because I readily admit I am unsure if my support is warranted. If the election was held today and I got to choose any candidate, I’d vote McCain. Now that I think of it, maybe I am dumb. Choosing to openly support two candidates means I have to wage twice as many debates.
You know, Alan, if that’s what Obama was selling then I’d agree more with you. But the way he portrays himself is more along the lines of the ‘glamorous’ kind of unity, which is an illusion. He doesn’t talk about incrementalism, he talks about sweeping, glorious, unity. For incrementalism to actually work, the people who put the candidate in office have to believe in that. Because most people don’t like it, the candidates don’t often advertise it even if they believe in it. But it fails most often when the candidates specifically campaigned on sweeping reform without explaining that they’d actually have to settle for less in order to forge that unity.
Look at the 2006 Congressional elections; the Dems specifically chose to be vague on what kind of change they were advocating, so that voters could read into it what they wished. They didn’t run on incremental change in our Iraq policy, did they? And what happened? They were unable to really have any effect at all, and the voters are pretty disillusioned about it.
I agree completely with Christine.
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
I know his plan is a secret. He’s like Richard Nixon. I have a plan to end the war. Oh really Mr. Nixon and what might that be. Well its a secret but you’ll find out soon enough. The fact was the plan was to bomb the holy crap outta the North Vietnamese. Shock and Awe.
Most of us are still waiting to see how hes going to provide any of this. Sounds really good to his progressive base. But then so did the Immigration law that in reality once passed could never be enforced, would never have been enforced and would have been one more Governmental failed attempt at resolving problems.
As Ronald Reagan always said. The biggest mistake we make is in thinking the government can fix anything. The biggest mistake voters would make is in thinking Barak Obama with his secret Plans has a fix for anything.
Jason Posted this elsewhere as a sign of Obamas superior Intellect and moderate views.
Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.
Did not Nato, Europe and most of the world already offer this to Iran and they effectively rejected this demanding once again that they were entitled to their Nukes? Am I missing something?
European negotiators with the European Union (EU) and the United States were reportedly willing to accept the arrangement as a compromise to allow Iran to move ahead with its nuclear programme while ensuring it does not produce nuclear weapons. Enrichment can produce material for bombs and for nuclear reactor fuel.
The fact is that the EU and Russia and China and just about everyone else including the US has been negotiating with Iran and they refuse. But heres good Ole Obama offering to redo it one more time. Moderate? No more like clueless in my opinion.
What is the status of Europe’s nuclear negotiations with Iran? They are in trouble. Since October 2003, Iran and three members of the European Union (EU)–Britain, France, and Germany–have engaged in negotiations to ensure that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. The Europeans have asked Iran to relinquish its uranium-enrichment program because the technology can easily be adapted for military uses. Iranians, however, say they will not give up what they see as their sovereign right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program.
The above from the Lefts own Council on Foreign Relations.
I can only shake my head at the rice paper foreign policy of Barak Obama and would laugh if it was not a very real possibility that this Incompetent man wants to be president.