Thursday, November 6, 2008

Obama Bandwagon, A Repsonse

First of all, if you are going to try and make a point that is contrary to one you know that is going to be argued, please do not slander my name by putting words into my mouth that were not there. I never said you were being a hater, we were just fervently arguing the two sides of the Obama coin.

Second, you never made your point. I think your thesis was “kicking the Republicans out of office won’t solve all our problems.” Then, you loosely associated Obama’s upcoming tenure with that of Bill Clinton by the way of the economy and foreign policy as means to justify your own tempered expectations for Obama. However, you said that you haven’t really researched either of the subjects, which devalues your entire argument.

Yet, I do agree with you that foreign policy and the economy are the two most important areas that must be addressed early in Obama’s stay in the White House. First, I want to address foreign policy. The attacks of 9/11 were tragic and while we can all point fingers as to who is to blame, the point is not how it happened but what was done afterwards. If you want to read a good book on everything leading up to 9/11 read Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies. Bush, after 9/11, declared war on terror (maybe the right thing to do in seeking to destroy al-Qaeda ) but got aggressive with his happy dance on Sadam’s buret. We all know the repercussions of these events and Bush isn’t going to be appearing on Dancing With the Stars anytime soon. The economy is being stretched by the war but should be alleviated once Barack takes office and phases the U.S. out of Iraq.

I am not sure where you were going with the tech-bubble argument other than saying that it was a democrat that was in office when it was inflated. Yet, its subsequent burst had little to do with the executive branch of our government. If you do want to trace it back and put the blame on a past president, you would have to go all the way back to Regan. His policies and deregulation of the financial markets opened the door for the likes of Ken Lay and mark-to-market accounting. The same could be said for the banking industry crises, which is really what is affecting our current economic situation. Free market economics and the lack of substantial oversight led to that collapse, not Clinton. You could say that he was guilty of inattentiveness but very few saw either of these events coming until it was too late. During the debates, Obama took a substantial lead in the polls because he has the right ideas about the economy. Trickle down economics don’t work and he wants to empower the working the class.

Here is where the meat and potatoes of this argument actually reside and the question that you failed to ask yourself. Do you believe that Barack can accomplish what he said he was going to during his campaign? Your apathy leads me to believe that you are taking a wait and see approach, which is all well and good. I, and thousands of other, believe that he can and that is why we are excited.

I agree with you that everyone is Washington DC is a politician; Barack, Bush, Pelosi, Clinton and even Palin. However, I think it is unfair to classify them all as the same type of politician. There are some politicians that say what you want to hear for the sake of saying what you want to hear only to get themselves elected, then, rarely come through with the goods.

One of the primary reasons why I think people are moved by Barack's words is because they don't view him as a politician who orates on the flowery image of tomorrow for the sake of getting elected. I, among thousands of others, actually believe that he is saying what he truly believes in and will fight tooth and nail when he is office to accomplish what he has put forth.

You wrote, “While I am hopeful that the rhetoric of his campaign can be realized in his policy, there is nothing unfair with qualifying everything he says as being uttered from a politician.” In this you are saying that because he is a “politician” everything he says is just bullshit until he does something about it. Where we differ is that I believe in his conviction and ability to make his bullshit come to fruition. If you think this makes me a follower of the Messiah or that I’m seeing images of sugar plum fairies dancing in my head, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

It is not just about democratic control of the executive and legislative branches, it is about who is in positions of leadership and capable of not just righting this ship that is nearly at the bottom of Persian Gulf but bringing her home to prosperity.

That is why I am excited, elated, jumping out of my chair, shouting in the streets, supporting Kenya’s national holiday and arguing with you about this. So why should I and everyone else calm the fuck down? We are ready for change and we can see it coming.

1 comment:

T$ said...

I meant that I haven’t researched any data on what the two most important issues were to voters, not that I am oblivious to the issues, themselves.

You say: “I, among thousands of others, actually believe that he is saying what he truly believes in and will fight tooth and nail when he is office to accomplish what he has put forth.” My question to you is this: why? What basis is there to believe that Obama is going to do everything he says? Did you believe him when he pledged to take public financing? Direct me to some significant past goal fulfilling, challenges overcome and word-keeping that he’s done since he became a politician – I expect this will be difficult, since he’s spent a significant portion of his federal legislative career running for office. Look, I’m all for giving credit where its due, but right now he is due credit for little more than being a good writer and motivational speaker, not as an administrator or military commander. - Is he a politician? Do you enjoy hearing what he says?


I disagree with your statement that “while we can all point fingers as to who is to blame, the point is not how it happened but what was done afterwards.” I expect good government to be proactive in resolving problems before they occur. This is the reason we maintain bridges so that they do not collapse. Besides, by that measure, we can still extend blame on our Democrat commander in chief for not doing anything after the earlier terrorist attacks on foreign soil.

In any case, all I’m attempting to accomplish with the comparison of our present economic and foreign affairs situations to those of 2000 is that I want to dispute the notion that G.W., as crappy of a leader as he is, and the Republican party are solely responsible for our problems. Diehard Democrats enjoy blaming Republicans for our problems. Republicans believe likewise about Democrats. Let me reasonably state that there’s plenty of blame to go around. Obama is not exempt from this principle – he’s going to mess up. Trying to blame Republicans for his inevitable failures is pretty dumb, but if history is any indication, Democrats will do so anyway.

Jake, you almost had me until you decided to blame (mark-to-market) accounting for the financial crisis. You’re about to receive a fury of CPA proportions.