Better Than I Could
October 8th, 2008I’ve been working on a “why I like Obama for President” post for some time. It’s nowhere near this:
The Choice: Comment: The New Yorker
You’ve likely seen this link all over the internet. It’s really good.
Best bits:
“By contrast, Obama has made a serious study of the mechanics and the history of this economic disaster and of the possibilities of stimulating a recovery. Last March, in New York, in a speech notable for its depth, balance, and foresight, he said, ‘A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting, coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement, allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long-term consequences.’”
and
Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, voted against confirming not only Roberts and Alito but also several unqualified lower-court nominees. As an Illinois state senator, he won the support of prosecutors and police organizations for new protections against convicting the innocent in capital cases. While McCain voted to continue to deny habeas-corpus rights to detainees, perpetuating the Bush Administration’s regime of state-sponsored extra-legal detention, Obama took the opposite side, pushing to restore the right of all U.S.-held prisoners to a hearing. The judicial future would be safe in his care.
and
By contrast, Obama’s transformative message is accompanied by a sense of pragmatic calm. A tropism for unity is an essential part of his character and of his campaign. It is part of what allowed him to overcome a Democratic opponent who entered the race with tremendous advantages.
You get the idea. I’m endorsing Obama for President.
Vote. You can’t whine about it if you don’t vote. o
Tags: 2008 election, 2008 presidential election, obama, obama/biden
One thing I might say… I listened to both nomination hearings of Roberts and Alito. Alito was a conservative tool, but for anyone to listen to Roberts you would at the very least have left feeling that he knew the law inside and out, and whether you agree with his political leanings it was quite clear he was qualified for the job.
His ability to recall case law and speak on it authoritatively was nothing short of remarkable. It was quite humorous to listen to the Senators from both sides of the aisle bumble about once he gave a detailed response based on his own knowledge when they weren’t expecting a quick and informed response.
Also notable was his stance on being reluctant to overturn previous rulings on cases such as Roe v Wade based on his respect for stare decisis. I remember being skeptical before listening to him and being convinced after. Given his conservative background you can guess which side he may fall in certain cases, but I have full confidence that he isn’t a political tool.
This also explains why there was essentially little resistance to his nomination even from democratic counterparts on the Judicial Committee.
Other than that, I’ve got no problems with what you’ve quoted.
I’m just so, so thankful I didn’t hear the word “maverick” last night.
Have you read the Rolling Stones article about McCain? Though I’m sure it’s chock-full of that liberal media bias, found it a pretty good read. And definitely an interesting insight on the more personal side of McCain. The jerk.
http://bit.ly/2dL1BG
[ed. note: Commenters, you can put links in here if you know HTML and how to do it properly.]
Ack! Should read *WINK WINK WINK* after the liberal media comment. Sorry, sometimes my sarcastic voice doesn’t work. :p
I already voted!!
YAY!
I’m going to be out of town that day and I want to make sure he gets my vote, so my wife and I filled out absentee ballots.
GET OUT AND VOTE.
Thanks for the link Blurb.
I loved this.
I just read the official response issued by Adler Planetarium’s to McCain in regards to his overpriced projector request. Once again, just shows how out of touch the guy is.
http://bit.ly/sBh9P
[ed. note: please use a URL shortener like bit.ly or tinyurl. Thanks!]
Naomi Wolf has a chilling interview on YouTube about what she calls a military coup by Bush/Cheney.
Re McPalin use of the word “maverick” last night.
Samuel Augustus Maverick (July 23, 1803–September 2, 1870) was a Texas lawyer, politician, land baron and signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence. His name is the source of the term “maverick.” The Maverick family has actually recently said that they detest McCain using this term to describe himself.
The New York Times has this double dose of awesomeness:
http://tinyurl.com/4qsxay
oops, looks like my link doesn’t work - this happens with the tinyurl generator add in sometimes. trying again
http://tinyurl.com/4h4vyw
I agree with #1 about Roberts. He doesn’t lean the way I’d like, but he is unquestionably qualified.
Folks, Prop 8 in California has shifted significantly towards the Yes vote in the last couple of weeks. A very effective ad for the Yes side has been airing and polls are now showing Prop 8 likely to pass.
We were going to go to a battleground state and help Obama the last two weekends of the campaign, but I think we’re going to stay closer to home and make phone calls and kick in some more $$ to No on 8.
It took me a while but I made it through most of the New Yorker article. You were right, it’s very eloquent and I don’t think many others could have stated the reasons for supporting Obama as well or as clearly.
I also loved the NYT Maverick article and the letter from the Planetarium - I just wish that they would be played up as much as Tina Fey/Sarah Palin. I could probably come up with a great SNL skit involving John McCain, and overhead projector and a planetarium (oh and a dictionary definition of earmark).
Finally, my one grip about the debate(s), okay, I’m sure I just lied, two:
1) um…Tom Brokaw, a bell? a whistle? green slime? to indicate the minute is up? Because half-heartedly chastising either candidate about ‘rules’ they ‘agreed’ to after they’ve already flagrantly broken them is just dumb. And, of course they’re going to talk until someone stops them, hello…
2) a fact checker with a joy buzzer seated with the moderator so when either of the debaters spews dubious facts they can be immediately corrected: ie–I was always against the bridge to nowhere BUZZZZZ. actually, it says right here that you petitioned for increased funding and, in fact, kept and used that money just not for the federally approved reason. Or something similar. Either side. I think we could scrounge up a lot of time that’s wasted when they endlessly do the whole: let me clarify what my opponent just stated…and it would force everyone to get their facts straight and ducks in a row so to avoid looking like an eejit.
“By contrast, Obama has made a serious study of the mechanics and the history of this economic disaster and of the possibilities of stimulating a recovery. Last March, in New York, in a speech notable for its depth, balance, and foresight, he said, ‘A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting, coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement, allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long-term consequences.’”
I found Obama’s speech to reap the fruit of his “serious study.” (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/27/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_54.php).
Alas, there isn’t anything that explains how federal deficit spending explains a worldwide liquidity crisis. Neither is there any explanation in the article. I suspect that’s because deficit spending made only a tertiary contribution to the current mess.
Nor did Obama’s speech go into any detail about “oversight and enforcement”.
Assuming the rest of the piece is as detached from reality as that quote, I’ve postponed reading the rest. I’m genuinely curious while people support such a hollow figure, but I certainly won’t be convinced by an endorsement that simply invents qualifications.
Jon,
I’d like you to comment on this…I wrote this on my Facebook this morning. This is just another bit of evidence to Obama’s lack of judgement as far as I see it. I’d like your take, as objectively as possible : ). Thanks
I can’t figure out why no one is totally up in arms over this voter registration fraud. And why no one will take up the issue with Obama, who was a trainer for the group and an attorney for a long time. And now his campaign admits making payments to ACORN. Great.
I’ve said often that this group has not helped lower income people, but totally used them. This morning on Fox News they spoke with one of the ACORN volunteers who’d been found to fraudently sign and register more than 15 false cards. He admitted it and said he was told by someone working for ACORN to do it “because it would help someone keep their job.” This kid was young, college age and said he had no idea it was illegal…that he just did what he was told to make some money and that he only found out it wasn’t ok when the election board called him and told him to stop!!!
This group as been shady for YEARS. Obama worked for them and has SUPPORTED them for his own gain. I find it incredibly hard to believe this kind of thing is an isolated incident and that, as their attorney, Obama didn’t know this kind of thing took place. He’d defended them and utilized them himself. And no one takes issue with this as a voter or a U.S. citizen??? I find it appalling, and yes, criminal. The organization should be shutdown and those who have ties to them should come forth and denounce their activities. Of course, isn’t that what Obama always does once he find out those he support or associates with have less than stellar actions or motives.
Sidebar:
http://bit.ly/416ChK
[ed. note: please use a URL shortener like http://bit.ly or http://tinyurl.com. Thanks!]
Just wanted to send this to for you to look over in regard to ACORN and Obama….
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/acorn_obama_and_the_mortgage_m.html
Thanks again
@nobody, By your claims, you yourself didn’t make a “serious study” of the article presented. How am I supposed to take you seriously?
You can’t argue about the climate of less oversight. Clinton did sign the Commodity Modernization Act. And he and other Dems who allowed it to pass and remain open for so long, deserve scorn. However, the most scorn deserves to be directed at the most heinous part of the act is the 11th hour inclusion by Phil Gramm of what has been called the “Enron loophole“. Guess when that loophole was closed? Two months ago after a failed Bush veto.
The endorsement for Obama was likely written some time in the past to accommodate printing schedules. I would put it somewhere in the two week range to make a press deadline. Although, I can’t be certain. It would seem you want an endorsement to follow your guidelines. I imagine the New Yorker happily accepts such suggestions from readers. I can’t vouch for non-readers.
I won’t be convinced that I shouldn’t vote for Obama by a person who likes to rant a lot and not provide a solid basis for their own argument.
@faydean,
Voter registration fraud is a front to stop people from voting. It’s a Republican tactic to keep people away from the polls. From today’s NYTimes:
http://bit.ly/3ajpjJ
From 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?hp
Based on your link, 50 voter registration cards had issues out of 80,000. Those 50 cards should raise concern, but the level of shouting from the conservative media is disproportionate. It’s an easy thing to say, less difficult to prove and is a Rovian tactic.
For example: 1, 2.
Voter Fraud is largely a smokescreen to get people like you riled up. It appears to be working. We all want and expect our elections to run untainted and for the process to be fair.
Anybody know the total number of ACORN indictments? Interesting that the GOP is filing complaints in only the most important states of the election. ACORN appears to be the latest GOP target. I can’t wait for the GOP to get voted out and stop using the language of labeling anybody who disagrees a terrorist.
Vote.
@faydean, you are misinformed.
John,
Sadly those who are so completely misinformed won’t read the information proving that fact. They are so blindly following the conservatives nothing will dissuade them from their views.
Living here in Ohio this Ken Blackwell bullshit got plenty of press - and he’s a slimeball for it! That name alone turns stomachs regularly in the community we live in!
We can only hope that those who believe in the ability to change this country for the better will all get out and vote! I don’t think my family will survive another 4 years of the same old bullshit we’ve been living through. We can hardly afford to buy gas to get to work (and we both work full time) let alone keep up with the normal bills (medical included).
Vote for CHANGE! Not the kind that has to hijack a slogan either - the kind that WE CAN BELIEVE IN!
Jon,
I appreciate your rebuttal, but I have a few problems with your counter.
1) The NYTimes article does not state anywhere that the voter fraud is a Republican ploy to keep people from voting. Most state attorney generals that have launched the latest investigation are Democrats.
And, the article says, “The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run.”
Also, at the end of the article, it states that Repulicans are asking states to look at the voters that have been removed also, so obviously both parties feel this is detrimental to them. So, I can’t see your argument at all here.
2) The second article has some information regarding the Republicans finding more of an issue with voter fraud, but quickly points out the reasons why, as compared to the Democrats. I don’t think those points have ever been argued really. But my question there is why in the world would you fault either party ever being concerned with voter fraud? I, personally, am glad one of theme is. Secondly, that ONE article points to 50 that they know about. But considering how many states are in question (from many Democratic state attorney generals), I think this argument is moot. From what I saw today, this issue is getting coverage from all mainstream media, across the board, as it should. Seems to me that you are just upset someone caught onto this game the Dems are playing in order to stack votes to their favor using the absentee ballot laws in most states.
3) While you say it’s questionable why they are just looking at the swing states, I can easily argue that they are looking at them because these are the only states that have showed marked changes very recently towards Obama…at the height of voter registration campaigns. That doesn’t at all seem odd to you?
4) I can’t take anything seriously from that smear site. First, it has Obama’s name plastered all over it. Not exactly non-partisan (much like the ACORN volunteers apparently). It’s like your other favorite site, that fact check place. When I saw it’s affiliation with Annenberg I immediately discounted it as being unbiased.
5) Obama DID work for ACORN. He tauted it as his big time community organization experience when he ran for Senate, both in Illinois and in the national race. I can give many examples of this if you question that.
6) Not sure why you think citing a couple of Republican strategists would matter to me. They are strategists, which lets you know immediately what their goals are…to strategize to their advantage. Both sides use them. Not much there to base an opinion on as I see it.
7)I can give plenty of action taken against ACORN, whether prosecuted successfully or not. This amount of corrobative evidence to this organization’s very unseamly actions seems unargueable to me. I can not see how anyone, from either side of the aisle, could say voter fraud is acceptable.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009189
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212176420.shtml
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20128338&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
I could go on, but there are simply too many articles, some dating back to 2004 and the late 1990s about ACORN’s questionable practices, indictments and corruption.
Again, I can’t see how you could argue that this is a political ploy. It’s illegal. It’s disgusting and it’s definitely UnAmerican. Also, where did I say anything about terrorism regarding this issue? Remember, I’m working on a rebuttal about that, LOL.
I will give you having your views from your party, sure. But on this one, I simply can’t concede an inch. I’d hammer just as hard if it was coming from the Republican side. But search for voter fraud, like THIS, on the net. You’ll be hard perssed to find much evidence of people blatantly lying and trying to undermine the system so blazenly.
Hey Jon,
Can you tell me…did I post a comment to your reply earlier? I was cooking dinner and tending kids as I wrote and I swore I posted it. It’s not here…and it could be because you’re checking the links or something and took it down for that.
I was just wanting to know if I totally didn’t even hit submit after writing all that. What I get for trying to multi-task! You will just say I’m wrong anyway, LOL. Which is fine too of course.
Thanks
Along with the voter fraud, ACORN, is responsible for MUCH more.
I can’t believe people aren’t just absolutely furious over this and what it’s done to this nation’s economy. Obama simply can’t say his party and HE is not greatly responsible for this. Yes, the original idea was great…let’s give loans to people would normally wouldn’t qualify or afford them. That’s the biggest deregulation culprit of them all! There are other factors, sure, but this was the straw that broke the camels back…or at least what injured the damn camel to begin with. It simply makes no sense as to why this was done, other than people trying to “help” out of guilt and some sense of political correctness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
And where do those people who needed the help stand now? Well, they still don’t have a home because most of them had their homes taken away from them because they couldn’t pay for them. And now, those people who did pay and could pay are losing their homes too. So not only are we back where we “started”, we’re actually behind where we began and now will have to try and fix this mess for possibly decades to come. Entitlements never help anyone.