Hello all. The coin has been tossed for this week's topic: Obama as president? According to the flip, I advocate this week against Barack Obama.
In thinking about this assignment, I considered the tremendous volume of negative material, in the media and on the Internet, aimed at Barack Obama. And so, it would seem my task--highlighting the reasons .jpg)
he shouldn't occupy the oval office--is a relatively easy one. But first impressions are just that, and it is clear that much of the negative stuff on Obama is, unfortunately, based on misinformation, whether by mistake or deliberate propaganda. It would be inappropriate and unfair for me to rely on this rhetoric for my position (but who the heck would ever have thought they'd even be considering a presidential candidate often passionately described as an unpatriotic, elitist, radical, African-American Muslim, who, if elected, plans to "destroy America from the inside out?" Yeah...and he probably illegally tears those annoying tags off of mattresses and pillows, the fiend.). In fact, I thought I might have to first address and dispel many of the most egregious of these negative attacks in order to get at the real negatives, but then I thought, "maybe this is exactly what Reed is doing." I trust him to do a good job in this regard. My task is to tell you why Obama should not be president, and to offer support for my position.
.jpg)
he shouldn't occupy the oval office--is a relatively easy one. But first impressions are just that, and it is clear that much of the negative stuff on Obama is, unfortunately, based on misinformation,So, then, Dano...why shouldn't he be president of the United States?
Let's take an objective look at Obama's experience. He has only been in the United States Senate since January, 2005 (37 months). He has no other Federal Government experience, though he served in the Illinois State Senate for the seven previous years. Obama has never been a mayor or a governor; he has no "chief executive" experience whatsoever. He has never served in the military, nor attended any military school. He has never been appointed to any ambassadorship, nor to any judgeship or Cabinet post. Some would argue that private-sector public service work represents qualifying experience, but I disagree. I consider it irrelevant (see discussion of previous presidents' qualifications, below).
For more information on his Government service, see http://www.barackobama.com edia.org/wiki/Obama
This means we are left to determine how qualified and effective Obama can be as a Government leader based only upon his legislative record. In the case of his Illinois legislative experience, a brief review of his stated accomplishments reflects a great deal of legislation to his credit; with one issue as an exception (more on this below), I would be happy to concede that he did well enough in the Illinois legislature to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But does being qualified to be a U.S. senator also qualify one to be POTUS? Not quite. Every single president in the last 100 years (that's as far back as I care to consider) was one or more of the following (and most of them filled numerous of these positions) prior to ascending to the presidency:
1. a governor or lt. governor
2. a vice president
3. a high-ranking military commander
4. a Cabinet or department secretary
5. a U.S. congressman (for at least a full term, usually longer)
(see http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html
For more information on his Government service, see http://www.bara
This means we are left to determine how qualified and effective Obama can be as a Government leader based only upon his legislative record. In the case of his Illinois legislative experience, a brief review of his stated accomplishments
1. a governor or lt. governor
2. a vice president
3. a high-ranking military commander
4. a Cabinet or department secretary
5. a U.S. congressman (for at least a full term, usually longer)
(see http://www.whit
Now back to the exception regarding his doing well in the Illinois legislature. Senator Obama frequently voted "present" on very important issues during his tenure in Springfield. We're not talking about minor issues, but really major ones, and ones that might even cost him votes by his party base. Below is a portion of an article written by Nathan Gonzales, the political editor for the Rothenberg Political Report:
(see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html
What's the upshot of this? Sure, he got a few good things done. But when it matters where Democrats are concerned, he frequently chose not to vote, rather than to have his views known to the voters. This represents a record that can be cherry-picked for good sound bites, but that truly reflects a lack of spine on partisan issues about which he should be proud to show his record. In the end, if he can't even support his own party platform in a convincing way, he can't expect to get bipartisan support for contentious issues while president. Obama is not nearly as conscientious or experienced as other presidents have been. He simply isn't qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth.
There is one last thing that might deserve consideration. This country has roughly as many registered Republicans as Democrats. Then there are independents. It is highly unlikely that Obama will get a majority of the popular vote. Republicans know this. No matter whether Obama is qualified to be president, if he gets elected, can he gain the trust of congressional Republicans? Something more than a majority of voters might well support efforts to thwart his agenda. Without more experience in the U.S. Congress, does he have the length and strength of relationships to draw bipartisan congressional support for his agenda, despite pressure from unhappy Republican constituents to crush it? Potential post-election difficulties should not be included in the qualification calculus, but they are relevant to the ultimate question this week: Should Obama be president? Definitely not. To read Reed's point of view, click here.
We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.
For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.
(see http://www.real
What's the upshot of this? Sure, he got a few good things done. But when it matters where Democrats are concerned, he frequently chose not to vote, rather than to have his views known to the voters. This represents a record that can be cherry-picked for good sound bites, but that truly reflects a lack of spine on partisan issues about which he should be proud to show his record. In the end, if he can't even support his own party platform in a convincing way, he can't expect to get bipartisan support for contentious issues while president. Obama is not nearly as conscientious or experienced as other presidents have been. He simply isn't qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth.
There is one last thing that might deserve consideration. This country has roughly as many registered Republicans as Democrats. Then there are independents. It is highly unlikely that Obama will get a majority of the popular vote. Republicans know this. No matter whether Obama is qualified to be president, if he gets elected, can he gain the trust of congressional Republicans? Something more than a majority of voters might well support efforts to thwart his agenda. Without more experience in the U.S. Congress, does he have the length and strength of relationships to draw bipartisan congressional support for his agenda, despite pressure from unhappy Republican constituents to crush it? Potential post-election difficulties should not be included in the qualific
Posts
17 comments:
Dano, interesting you compare Obama to Lincoln. I would think that one very good reason to NOT elect him to the presidency would be that he NOT end up like President Lincoln... with a bullet in his head. I fear that he would be a target for some wanked up skin head or KKK member, and he certainly does not deserve that. But moving on to the fact that one of these two gents will probably be president, I personally feel that Obama is the lesser of two evils (actually McCain reminds me of one very famous "Dr. Evil"). I am tired of the politics of the republicans that have taken our nation from a huge surplus to a record deficit. Whether or not Obama fixes the budget and repairs the economy is also debatable, the democrats should get control of the checkbook for a few years to TRY to get things fixed. Lastly, I feel better listening to Obama speak, more comfortable if you will. Most people (I include myself here) in general feel safer with someone in charge they consider to be calm, confident, and genuine. I don't find those qualities in McCain. I'm still waiting for his pinky to grace his lips......muuuuhhhhaaaaa
I will acknowledge that Obama is the new kid on the block but he has come an awfully long way in an awfully short time. A great leader knows enough to surround himself with great people in order to fill in his own shortcomings and I believe that he will & does this already. If you pick experienced people in areas where you are not as experienced then you balance the scales.
In the area of previous Presidents' experience, I think that we should all acknowledge that times have changed a great deal since this country was founded and thus things like Military Command is not nearly as important as it used to be, unless we are expecting a military coup.
I feel like Obama has a lot to offer our nation in the way of leadership and vision. He is either the best candidate that we have had in 8 years or he is possibly the anti-Christ...but we can't tell yet, can we?
bucfan251...thanks for the comments, but you have me and Reed confused. It was Reed that compared Obama to Lincoln.
And you make a good point about the possibility of assassination, though I hate to even think about that. It seems that whenever someone tries to change American society on a fundamental way, they are a target. While none of us hopes for an assassination (at least not out loud), it IS a possibility that one might put in their calculus about whether or not the next president should be candidate A or B. But, really, shouldn't we take chances on the right moral choices, no matter what the outcome? I think we should, so I didn't use this assassination possibility in my argument against Obama.
Your feelings about McCain seem to be honest, and there is nothing wrong with guiding your choices by your gut, just so long as you don't buy into false rhetoric about the other guy in your own deliberations.
valeriekjohns, I agree with much of what you said. However...
Times have changed in some fundamental ways, but not in the most important aspects with regard to picking a president. What I mean is, we always want the man/woman leading the most powerful country on earth to be learned, intelligent, morally centered, and concerned for the welfare of our citizens and our nation. But how do we know the candidate has these attributes? Generally, we learn about them from the candidate's history. Many people have opined that Obama is an "empty suit," which I think reflects the lack of empirical evidence out there necessary to really "know" the man in the way we hope to know the potential president.
Obviously, there is an argument to be made for "new blood," I just have to question whether we know ENOUGH about Obama to place our faith in him. I think this is a personal threshold kind of issue.
ah yes, I stand corrected on the Lincoln comparison point. Unfortunately, the fact that Obama is a minority puts a target on his back. In addition to that he speaks of change, which most folks truly want. However, as you mention, there are also many that are afraid of any fundamental change and will do whatever it takes to prevent it. When you add it all up, certainly Obama has considered the fact that if he is elected he would be the first black American to be president and has considered the potential personal harm he may face as such. Clearly this has not stopped him, and therefore should not be a reason to NOT elect him. I stand corrected again......Go Obama!
Fair enough, bucfan251.
I don't think arguing Obama's lack of experience is a winner. I think it helps him. And it shows how out of touch McCain's campaign is. McCain's experience is not a plus, but a weakness. I'm sure Obama can't wait to say these words in a debate. "Where's your legislation that's going to change this country? And before you mention that it was introduced but didn't pass, I think that speaks to your ability to gain a consensus on any legislation that would actually improve the country." Let's be honest. Legislation that was groundbreaking and bore McCain's name and was considered bipartisan didn't do anything but tick off both sides of the political spectrum.
The biggest arguement against an Obama presidency is his domestic policies. There's not a lot of details out there to rip apart, but his energy plan has plenty of pitfalls to give you a good arguement against him.
obama's energy plan is smoke and mirrors. Obama has proposed investing the government's (our) money in putting 1 million plug-in electric cars on the road. All this is is a way to give government subsidies to a struggling American auto industry. (Another industry bail out). All plug-ins do is shift energy costs from gasoline to other energy sources -- those that run power plants. The pollution doesn't come out of the car, but out of the smokestacks. And with heavy regulation on nuclear power plants, the cleanest energy isn't able to increase to meet the demand. This will drive prices up for home heating/cooling bills. It's a shift.
What about a windfall tax on oil companies. The oil companies are going to make their profits one way or the other. Especially now that investors are used to fat dividend checks. All a oil profits tax will do is increase the price of oil at the pump so that the oil companies can still earn the profits that shareholders expect.
And what about taking that money from the oil profits tax and giving it back to the American people? Well, here's another cut from the government issued check that will cost Americans more to distribute and administer than probably be collected. And the check still won't cover most people's increased price of gasoline at the pump, because the check will likely be distributed to all Americans -- even those who ride bicycles. By instituting a policy that has the end effect of increasing pump prices, that causes inflation, or an inflation tax. As the price of food and other household neccesities increase in price.
The best energy policy is not being offered by either candidate. Get the heck out of the Middle East. If you look at the history of oil prices through the last 30 years, you will notice that whenever America gets involved in the Middle East oil prices soar and an "energy crisis" ensues. Only because the Gulf War of 1991 was so short did it not rise to "crisis" level, but the spike is evident.
There are various other factors why we are paying too much for gas and most of them are based on poor government policy. But I'm sure you guys will get to that eventually.
j.t. twilley, I appreciate your detailed responses. I certainly considered Obama's energy policy when looking for reasons to oppose him. I could not, however, reach the same conclusions that you did.
Neither Reed nor I are economists, for sure. I am not qualified to know what would happen with big oil profits or with the auto industry based upon either Obama's or McCain's plans. But I can opine that Obama's plan would not lead to a "bailout" of the auto industry. Not all shifted resources have to go into fossil fuel power plants (plug-in cars don't have to be run on coal-powered electricity sources, for instance, as many resources could be put into wind farms--which is something T.Boone Pickens has been touting--or even high density bioreactors, which I think are very exciting. See http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039 for more on this).
Besides, even if Obama's plan did shift resources in such a way as to assist the auto industry, is that a terrible thing? It seems like we should do more to protect America's largest industries from collapse. As it is, we've lost too many jobs to outsourcing and tax laws that reward corporations for leaving the country to build factories elsewhere.
If you have some reference material (citation or link)that supports your position, we'd all be glad to see it. In the meantime, feel free to keep opining...we need and appreciate the participation!
Now, granted, McCain has said he would help (bail out) the auto industry "however I can." Here's a link to Obama's promised bailout Here
You have to go deep into this story to find that McCain has made the same promise without a price tag. I couldn't find a more in depth article I read a few weeks ago when this was the news of the day: Here
Here is a link that contains an analysis on oil/gas history. Here
You will notice conflict in the Middle East directly impacts the price of oil. There are numerous other sites on the Internet if you do a search for gas price history that will point to more recent analysis.
As to how any policy that causes inflation by devaluing the dollar (increasing minimum wages, economic stimulus packages, proposed oil profit handouts, artificially low interest rates, airline bailouts, financial institution bailouts) also increase the price of gas. See this link: Here
Here is why oil profits windfall is a bad idea: Here
Although even that article doesn't even reach the point that these oil companies will pass on any negative to profits to the consumer.
The following link provides that arguement, which is more general in nature, but can certainly be applied to the domestic oil industry as any other: Here
I don't know if you guys prefer our comments to include a link or links to support our arguements. I could have provided about 10 additional links some of more unbiased sources and some more biased than the ones I did above. Fact is I've usually read numerous sources on any issue I "opine" before I "opine" upon it. Don't really know how much documentation you expect/want.
You mention you and Reed are not economists. I'm not either. But as I'm a political junky, I've been in a lifelong independant study in economics. And while the details of economics are often left for debate and are based on theory, the laws of economics that form the basis for study in the field you can take to the bank every time. Two of those are: 1)Supply and demand impact prices (OPEC controls supply of oil to impact prices, even lowering them to offset the chance that alternative forms of energy are pursued) 2) Corporations don't pay taxes. Not really. The people who buy products/services from corporations pay corporate taxes. Taxes on corporations are what are referred to as "hidden taxes" on the consumer. Because when a consumer purchases a product or service it doesn't show up on the receipt/invoice as a tax. That's becaue the tax is already included in the retail price of the service/product. When a corporate tax is increased the people running the corporation must make a decision: Cut profits from owners/shareholders, cut employees/benefits, increase prices to consumers -- sometimes a combination of the three. Rarely is cutting profits to owners/shareholders anything but a very short-term solution, if one at all.
j.t. twilley,
Thanks for the links to your resources. While we don't expect them for every comment (most comments are merely opinions without stated bases), it's nice to get them when the commenter has them.
I would never have chosen to read the kinds of articles you present with your links. I am a social scientist (research criminologist, actually), not an economic scientist. It simply doesn't interest me most of the time. Having said that, it doesn't mean I think these things don't matter. Instead, I rationalize my lack of in-depth study of economic issues by suggesting that I know politicians on both sides of the aisle have armies of qualified economists to give them advice and direction. And even one episode of a cable news program about economic issues proves that there is often very little agreement between economists about many important issues.
I enjoyed reading the piece on the history of oil prices. In my final analysis, I believe the same as I did before: no matter what we do with regard to production in America, oil prices will always go up and down because other producers will do what's necessary to stabilize prices. This seems to be born out by the very article you provided, wherein the actual stability of oil prices since WWII is well-laid-out, despite all the production increases and decreases that have occurred during the period. The price we pay at the pump here is largely out-of-step with other nations because of the devalued U.S. dollar. And that was NOT caused by the oil industry.
It also seems that oil prices will become much less relevant when we ween ourselves from it. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources will be expensive, but it's do-able. In fact, for what we've spent on the war in Iraq since its start, we could have built enough green energy infrastructure here to completely forget about mid-east oil.
Obama's suggestion of a $1000 rebate to consumers is, I think, his way of responding to record profits by big oil at a time when consumers are providing the dollars that are making them those profits. So what's the deal? Are the huge profits of the oil companies not really that big, because their dollars aren't worth two-thirds of a Euro each?
Thanks again for your thoughtful input.
I admit up front that I haven't researched this, and that it is purely a hunch. There may be nothing public about it. My guess is that the record oil company profits are a symptom rather than a cause. And a reaction to the oil companies and attempting to punish them is an attempt to address a situation that just isn't there.
I think the reason that oil companies are seeing record profits is because their profit formula is tied to the price of gas rather than the quantity of gas they are moving. Adn the price of gas is influenced by OPEC and the market. There is no malicious deed being done by the oil companies at present -- certainly no more malicious than the attempt to make a buck they've always had.
Allow me to explain. If their profits are based off of a cost of gas formula. I don't know what the precentages are so I'll use placeholders to illustrate. If say oil companies have a 5% profit on a gallon of gas. And becasue of OPEC and oil speculators the price of a gallon of gas increases, so do the profits. These market manipulations are not the fault or under the control of the oil companies, I don't think. Whether gas is $2.00 or $4.00 they're still making 5% on the price. Of course, the higher the price, the higher the profit. But other factors are having a much more powerful influence on the price of gas than the oil companies.
It's the same with a gas tax holiday. The governments at all levels are still taxing a gallon of gas. But government's take is based on quantity sold, not price of gas. Once again private business does better. Because see if the fed tax rate is $0.40 per gallon, they don't see a revenue increase based on the increase of gas as do the oil companies. Whether gas is $2.00 or $4.00 the government still only gets that $.40 per gallon.
Both are bad policies because they don't attack the source of the problem. They are diversions to make Americans feel like the government is doing something to help. That's because the things the government could do would be to give a dose of "bad medicine" to "The People". (IE. stop devaluing the dollar. Get out of the Middle East.) Most people like the actions the government is taking to devalue the dollar. Because most people don't see the connection between those actions that cause that devalue and the end results -- inflation tax.
Give me cheap food and cheap gas is the cry of the American people. But when the American people get greedy and want the government to save their house, provide them with cheap loans, save their pensions from the big American companies (auot, financial, airline), etc., etc., it all has the impact of making it more difficult to get what 98 percent of all people want -- cheap food and cheap energy.
Okay, j.t., who has the best economic plan among all the available candidates (and, no, Stephen Colbert is not a REAL candidate)? If you had to pick between McCain and Obama, which of them has the best plan?
All excellent reasons he is not fit for the presidency due to experience/qualification. There are not enough internet pages to cover his lack of judgment, choice of friends and 'personal quirks'.
Bravo! But you left out one real good reason not to vote for Obama. His biological father was Muslim, and so was his stepfather. That makes him a Muslim, whether he admits it or not! We can't afford to have a Muslim in the White House especially while we have a war on terrorists.
Davis360, your comment is precisely the kind we don't want on Butt and ReButt: there is no credible evidence of any that Obama is a Muslim. Islam is a religion, not a race, and you don't get it through heredity. Obama has stated, and evidence supports, that he is a practicing Christian. Moreover, while my complaint regards your unsupported statements about Obama's religion, let's also make clear that being Muslim does not make you a bad person, nor would disqualify a candidate for the presidency. Many terrorists in the world are Muslim extremists, but most Muslims are God-fearing and peaceful people, so the suggestion that we "don't need a Muslim in the White House" is merely your opinion, and may be a bit offensive to many people. Please refrain from this kind of comment in the future.
I agree with bucfan that if Obama is elected, he may very well become a target for a bullet in the head. Like him or not, he doesn't deserve that. He needs to get a pit bull.
I congratulate those of you who have responded to this post without vitriol and hate, and ask that those of you who can't help but play race and religion as a viable argument against someone, refrain from commenting at all.
Post a Comment