Eve of the US Election – An Independent on Obama

I am one of those voters that both parties covet – an independent.  I base my voting decisions not upon vitriolic campaign ads but on what I learn from reading and studying.  And I must admit, I am confused by much of what I hear being politicized as we head into the midterms.

Confused because I believe President Obama and his administration have done an admirable job with what they were handed.  Two years ago, we were entering the Great Recession – the worst economic time most of us have ever known.  Eight years of a Bush-Cheney-Rove administration had squandered the $1 trillion surplus left  by the previous president and as a result of two questionable wars (where are those weapons of mass destruction?), a popular but unnecessary tax cut that sapped billions from much needed programs,  and an administration that refused to keep a watchful eye and regulate industries to which it had previous ties and strong support, the incoming administration was dealt a hand not seen since the FDR administration.

Shortly after some of the bailouts were implemented, Ivy League economists applauded the move and wrote that the U.S. had been a mere three weeks away from not just a recession but a depression.  The damage that had been done could not be fixed in a matter of years.  It would take a generation to fix many of the economic ills if indeed, they would ever be completely fixed.

Yet here we are two years later and people are mad that the economy has not been restored and their lifestyles are not back to the way they used to be.  Much of the anger is being fostered and fueled by those angry that they have lost power and control.   As a result these people (a.k.a. Conservatives, Tea Party advocates) make you think that they can fix these problems even though they were the same ones who created them in the first place.  Folks, quit being so soft.  The damage that has been done is going to take a least a decade of extreme sacrifice.  It can’t be fixed in a matter of months or years.  Get used to the fact that things aren’t going to be the same for quite a while.  Thank you Bush-Cheney- Rove.

Don’t get me wrong. I am mad many days as well.  While I am grateful to have job, I have lost benefits, took a pay cut two years ago which yet to be restored, own a house I cannot sell and earn about what I did 15 years ago, all while trying to find a way to fund a college education for my daughter.  So, no, I am not a happy camper either.

But I look at what has been accomplished and I do have a ray of optimism.  While not a fan of tax cuts that would zap much needed funds from a government that has done a decent job of propping up industry, I must applaud the current administration for finding  a happy medium by providing $116 billion of tax cuts for Americans. (Why don’t more people know this?) Unfortunately, most Ivy League economists will tell you that there is no way the economic tsunami can be controlled without a tax increase (thank you again Bush-Cheney-Rove).  The numbers just won’t work.

So as I head to midterms, I ask myself what are the positives that have occurred these last two years and are they sufficient enough to support the current administration?  Here is what I see.

I see a stock market that is up 25%, ranking among the top five highest gains ever for the first two years of a presidency.  I see a housing industry, wrought by prior unregulated mismanagement, beginning to stabilize.  New home sales increased 10% last month.  I see an unemployment rate predicted to go as high as 12-14%, remaining under 10% and dropping as the government begins to push money – albeit far too slowly for many – to small business and the private sector.

I see the automobile industry beginning to recover thanks to TARP money.  Had the auto sector failed, economists agree, the U.S. would have seen not just a recession but most assuredly a depression.  In fact, only about half the TARP money allocated was needed to accomplish  that feat and more than half of that has already been recovered, resulting in the distinct possibility that TARP could actually turn a profit, making it one of the best uses of federal tax dollars ever.  Without that support, the non-partisan Congressional Business Office suggests perhaps another couple of million jobs would have been lost.  Reality is that more jobs have been created in the first two years of this administration than in the entire eight years of the previous administration.

Suffice it to say, the stimulus package is working.  Nevertheless, many somehow feel that things ought to be the way they used to be, which if we care to admit, was a way of overspending on things we felt we deserved or needed or wanted, simply so we could at least appear comfortable, successful and semi-affluent.   So much for appearances.

So I scratch my head.  I read.  I study.  I look a bit to history.  And history tells me that it took FDR nearly four terms to cure the ills of the Great Depression.  I’m not sure I understand why some believe this administration should have been able to right the sinking ship of the prior administration in a matter of months or two short years.  Nevertheless, there are many positive indicators that things are getting better.

I am a positive person.  I am independent voter.  And I am choosing to stay the course.

Editors note: this posting was previously a comment posted in a past thread.

Rhetoric and Reality in the 2008 Presidential Election

Last week, as I thought about the remarkable rhetorical abilities of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, I was struck by the similarities in their respective paths to the White House.

As candidates, both Reagan and Obama were challengers to the incumbent party candidate. In Reagan’s case, he squared off against President Jimmy Carter of the then-governing Democratic Party. For his part, Obama faced John McCain, a member of the incumbent Republican Party. Both were at first deemed unprepared for a presidential run, but the tide quickly turned in their favour.

Curious, I then expanded the sample size to include all presidential elections since 1980.

What I’ve found is that presidential challengers have defeated the incumbent party candidate on four occasions–and on each of those occasions the challenger won by invoking the rhetoric of redemption.

This may or may not come as a surprise.

But what is interesting, I think, is that there may be a disconnect between rhetoric and reality in the case of the 2008 presidential election. I’ve developed this argument in a bit more detail in my latest piece at the Huffington Post.

Comments welcome, both online and offline.

The H Stands for ‘Hubris’

But we probably already knew that’s what President Obama’s middle initial really stood for.

It’s been a year since the over hyped and under performing ‘stimulus’ package was passed in the U.S., and even with the employment rate still hovering around 10% (it dropped 0.3% to 9.7% in January), Mr. Obama has the gall to trumpet the success of the stimulus package in saving or creating 2 million jobs.

The stimulus package was a mistake.  The very premise of the stimulus package has been proven faulty; the notion that this money needed to be pumped into the economy right away is refuted by the fact that the United States government expects most of the stimulus money to be spent in 2010.

Even their job claims are ridiculous.  Sure, it’s conceivable that 2 million more people would be out of work had it not been for the stimulus, but considering the length and depth of the increased unemployment in the United States over the last 12 months, it’s pretty hard to believe (especially if you accept the idea that the real unemployment rate in the United States is 17%).  Further, the notion of jobs being created was always absurd, and often interpreted creatively.  The administration appears to understand this, and have continued to walk back from their original claims of the job-creating power of the stimulus.  However, on the anniversary of this grand mistake, they are throwing reason to the wind, standing tall on the shoulders of this fiscal albatross.

Even if Barack Obama says it, it does not make it true.

In the Honduran Election, the Role of Ronald Reagan Will be Played by Barack Obama

Back in the summer, news outlets were aflame with the Honduran “coup“, but, as sometimes happens, the public and the media seem to grow weary of a story, and do not follow through its progress with the same vigour it displayed during the initial incident.

In that vein, I’d like to point out (because I haven’t seen it mentioned in many places) that Honduras has held its election to choose a new president, and that president is Porfiro Lobo.  From The New York Times:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Porfirio Lobo, a longtime conservative politician, appeared headed toward victory on Sunday in the Honduran presidential election, which many hoped could help the country emerge from the crisis caused by last summer’s coup and end its isolation.

The electoral tribunal said Sunday night that Mr. Lobo had 52 percent of the vote, with almost two-thirds of the votes counted. That gave him a margin of 16 percentage points over his main opponent, Elvin Santos.

The decision by the Honduran congress to refuse to re-instate former president, and wannabe dictator, Manuel Zelaya for the remaining two months of his scheduled term is great news.  Honduras still has a lot of problems, but they have demonstrated an adherence to the principles of constitutional democracy – a stand for which they have received too little support from other nations of the “free world”.

Of course, Zelaya’s comrades in tyranny are not so happy.  From Bloomberg:

Venezuela said U.S. President Barack Obama, after recognizing Honduran election results, joins earlier presidents who had “violent relations” with the continent such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry reiterated it won’t recognize the “farce” elections in Honduras on Nov. 29, and condemned other governments in the region that have done so, including Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica.

“The government of Barack Obama is now openly inscribed in the tradition of violent relations with our continent, recalling the insulting times of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, among others,” the Foreign Ministry said in an e-mailed statement. “The position of the U.S. government was particularly shameful as the principal architect of the coup.”

Congrats, Mr. Obama.  Being despised by a dictator is a badge of honour.

Mr. Obama’s Afghan Surge: What Do You Think?

As I mentioned, I did not watch Mr. Obama’s speech last night; I did, however, read the speech (which you can find here).  I have a quick post about it at my blog.  Basically, I don’t think Mr. Obama made his case for another surge, and I’m still inclined to think the U.S. should withdraw (though I am open to being dissuaded).

That being said,  I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama is right.  I’d like to see as little death and suffering (in the long run) as possible.  If this proves to be the way to achieve this, then I will be happy to have been proven wrong.

So, what do the readers of ThePolitic think?  Is Mr. Obama’s plan a good one?  Why or why not?

(For a few other interesting takes on the subject, check out Chris Dierkes, Nick Gillespie, Glenn Greenwald and Reihan Salam.)

Barack Obama and the Slow Pace of Gay Rights

Scott H. Payne is none too pleased with Barack Obama and the lack of activity on the gay rights front.  He expresses despair that President Obama (and, I’m assuming, other Democratic legislators) are not pushing for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act:

It is true that one can argue for the delay of certain decisions with a certain well intentioned glibness. It’s not that you oppose the particular initiative or need for the decision, but rather that there is so much to do, so many decisions to make, isn’t it important to tackle each of them head on, one-by-one?

It is, I suppose, until one sees the run-off impacts of pushing the need to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or the Defense of Marriage Act off to another day, or not having a President who believes in equal rights under the law speak loudly and clearly of the need to support marriage equality, or inviting Rick Warren to participate in the inauguration of that President in the harsh and unforgiving light of purely putative and explicitly discriminatory legislation elsewhere.

Though there is not a one-to-one relationship between one’s actions (or lack thereof) and the existence of such legislation, one wonders what degree of moral authority one possesses in order to address such issues having embraced the fierce urgency of whenever.

It is a humbling and, in some senses, chilling realization of tacit and unintended complicity.

I respond to Scott here.  Scott seems to have a greater fondness for Mr. Obama than I, so he’s a little more disappointed than I am.  I’d love to see DADT repealed, but I, generally, support DOMA (though perhaps with some minor tweaking).

However, putting aside the specific arguments for or against these policies, Scott’s post got me thinking about legacies – something that is so often discussed about presidents and legislators.  So, my question is this, what would be the greater legacy for Barack Obama, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or the remake of the entire U.S. health care system?

It seems obvious to me that health care reform would be more memorable (look at Bill Clinton’s legacy regarding a failed attempt at reform compared to his legacy regarding DADT).  But what would his supporters think?

I wonder if liberals might be inclined to think that the repeal of DADT would be a greater moral legacy than health care reform, even if not as memorable.

And I’m guessing that progressives would tend to consider health care reform to be a far greater prize than the repeal of DADT.

For me, it’s not even close.  DADT should be repealed.  The current proposals for health care reform seem like a giant mess waiting to happen.  I know for which I’d rather be remembered.

I’m not Listening to Barack Obama

So the president is on TV to talk about his plans for Afghanistan (plans that had, I thought, already been unveiled).  Well, I’ve had enough.  He has been on prime time television a lot since the inauguration.  I’m interested in his plan, but I don’t feel like listening to another speech.  I think I’ll just read it instead.

Besides, Christmas Vacation is on.

Barack Obama’s Latest Kowtow: An Affront to Liberty

So, Barack Obama is bowing to royalty again.  Not learning from his embarrassing genuflection to the Saudi King, Mr. Obama can be seen to be bowing to the Japanese emperor, Akihito.  What’s the old saying?  Once is political stupidity; twice is political idiocy?

I know my comment will bring many Obama fans to their feet in feigned rage.  As with the Saudi incident, apologists will argue against the facts, partisans deny the significance.  However, make no mistake about it; Mr. Obama’s behaviour was inappropriate.  It is unbecoming of the leader of, arguably, the greatest democracy on earth.  It is an insult to those who worked to make the United States a leader in the fight for freedom and liberty.

The leader of the free world is to be a subject to no one.  He must be humble before the people, but strong and commanding before foreign royalty.  Respect for the culture of another must not come at the denigration of the office the presidency.  In this situation, we are not witnessing two equals partaking in a respectful ritual of bowing to one another – the equivalent of shaking hands in the west.  No, we are witnessing one person implicitly glorifying the majesty of a supposed superior.

Mr. Obama’s actions demonstrate that he is the lesser in his meeting with the emperor.  He is demonstrating that the quintessential American ideal, “that all men are created equal”, is not universally true.  His motives are moot.  His mentallity is moot.  He has, again, violated the essence of liberal democracy.  It should be concerning that he has crossed this line and that he continues to cross this line.

In many ways, this is not a particularly big issue.  If Mr. Obama ends the war in Afghanistan, if he turns around the economy, if he fixes the U.S. health care system, he will be, rightfully, remembered as a great president, no matter how shameful some of his behaviour was on the international stage.  Nonetheless, if he – a former constitutional law professor – hasn’t taken one of the basic pillars of liberty to heart, how can we be confident that he will be an adequate leader in the continuing struggle against world wide oppression?  How can we expect him to be the valiant defender of liberty that the president ought to be?

The shining city on the hill is becoming tarnished.

(H/T: @GregFarries.)

Climate Change and Copenhagen – The World is, Apparently, Ending.

In Politico‘s The Arena, they ask:

Climate: How big a deal is it that there will be no big deal at Copenhagen? Are you pleased or displeased about it?

Well, they didn’t ask me, but in all humility I thought it best that I supply an answer:  Not much.

“The Environment” is an important, though often undefined, issue – much like “women’s issues”, “social justice” and “family values”.  Nonetheless, these types of grand international summits never seem to be of much use.  Politicians use them to grandstand and to pick on old grudges.  They agree on action that they never intend to enact (or know will burden their successors) or initiatives that they were already planning to introduce – though now they can do so with an heir of self-righteousness.

Honest debates about “climate”, though possible, are rare.  Dishonesty and ulterior motives abound, and few are willing to engage their adversaries in a constructive and collaborative endeavour.  Are humans damaging the environment?  Undeniably.  Does that mean we must dismantle all tools of wealth creation, no matter how much it increases human suffering?  Hardly.  The trick lies somewhere in between.  At what point do we optimize our well being?  What is the balance between wealth creation (along with freedom) and environmental protection?  I don’t claim to have an answer, but I’m willing to acknowledge the question.

Politico did ask our friend, Richard Albert.  Richard has a different and less cynical, though not truly incompatible, take than I have:

As a Christian, President Obama has accepted the responsibility to orient himself toward four pillars of conduct: defend the weak, heal the sick, stare down evil, and care for our planet. So far, President Obama is batting three for four. Now he owes it to himself, to his faith, to his fellow Americans and to the citizens of the world to fight for Earth. Copenhagen will not be the answer. But the President can—and indeed must—use the occasion as a catalyst for a new round of negotiations next year.

So, the question now is, where do we start?  I’m prepared for a number of comments to this post crying out against the infiltration of Marxist thought via the Climate Change agenda, as well as a number of prophets warning of the impending doom as the polar ice caps turn to boiling tar in three weeks if we don’t do something.  As you can guess, I’m not particularly open to the arguments of the extremists on either end of this debate.

So, dear readers of ThePolitic, where do we start?

(By the way, for a reasoned debate about climate change, check out Jim Manzi and David W. Orr.)

Jon Corzine Fails to Buy New Jersey Election

Alright, it’s just about time to permanently retire the trope that lots of campaign spending buys elections, and, thus, scrap all ill-conceived and undemocratic campaign finance laws.  In politics, money isn’t everything; just ask soon to be former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:

Corzine, a former Wall Street executive, has spent $23.6 million on the general election, compared to Republican Chris Christie’s $8.8 million and independent Chris Daggett’s $1.2 million, according to the state Election Law Enforcement Commission.

Corzine donated or loaned his general election campaign $22.6 million of its $24.1 million, writing checks to cover TV ads, several pollsters and a $15,000 hall rental for President Obama’s visit to Fairleigh Dickinson University.

If political campaigns were all about accounting, Mitt Romney would have been battling Obama last year, Brian Mulroney would have become Prime Minister a decade earlier than he did, California and Maine would have gay marriage, the Charlottetown Accord would have passed, and it might have been Forbes v. Bradley instead of Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Sure, one can spend more money and win more votes; the Obama-McCain election demonstrates that.  But could it be that the reason that Obama was able to raise far more funds than McCain is the reason he won more votes: he was insanely popular?

In The Ottawa Citizen years ago, John Robson wrote on this very topic.  He argued that no matter how much money you spent, you couldn’t convince people to eat a sludge sandwich (sorry, no link).  Voters in New Jersey know sludge when they see it, and, thus, voted against Jon Corzine.

No matter how much he spent.

Next Page »