Note: While keeping this blog relatively politics-free over the past few months, I’ve been fervently defending Obama at Jack’s Newswatch against all manner of attacks (some particularly underhanded). One of my favorite counter-posters inquired why if I was an Obama-maniac do I appear to be falling back. Airing direct political views isn’t something I like to do too often but it’s worthy clearing the air in this instance. Below is a slight modification of my response:
Actually, I supported Clinton over Obama, stating that Obama would be a wonderful candidate … for 2012.
When McCain came up I supported McCain over Obama because Obama’s economic policies didn’t (and don’t) appeal to me. I am a fiscal conservative in the truest sense – money coming in should surpass money going out, no matter how “righteous” the spending. This applies to both government housing and Middle-Eastern war-mongering. Both Obama and Reagan were/are failures in this respect (a tax cut is simply another form of redistribution and is just as toxic when combined with skyrocketing spending).
However, when McCain introduced Sarah Palin and she brought along her gaggle of toxic rednecks, I turned the corner. So did many people to the right of me. We held our nose and hoped for the best for Obama.
So far it doesn’t look like he’s done anything that Bush hadn’t done or wasn’t en route to doing. No one’s mortgage has been paid off, Acorn has not been given any special mandate to help the poor, etc. That doesn’t bother me, but it should bother his heartfelt believers. I’ll continue to defend Obama against anything that looks like a Blog-lynching, just as blacks who did not believe in MLK’s conciliatory approach to civil rights nonetheless defended him against the KKK and similar groups. But that’s where my support ends. I’d honestly rather have a beer with Bush – he seems less pretentious and more likely to embrace Cynapse’s oddball humor. I didn’t care for “shrub” as a leader, mind you.
Still, to say Obama should fail is equivalent to saying America should fail. That’s pretty toxic talk, and people who campaign for Obama’s downfall even though record deficits hang in the balance are basically saying they’d rather have their nation fail financially than not have their pet projects funded (or worse yet, withhold funding from their neighbors just to “stay ahead”). That’s exceptionally selfish.
Excellent post, Cynapse. You’re exactly right. Anyone hoping that Obama fails is basically hoping that the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and so many others will fail too.
This is a time for everyone to be working together and putting petty politics aside.
And I notice that POTUS gains more and more experience, he realizes that those lofty, ideological promises are hard to keep in real life and compromises often have to be struck.
Hi Joanne:
Thanks for your reply. The one thing I do see in Obama is that he’s proposing to the left and acting to the center. Lots of partisan drama will take place over the next few years but in distant history I don’t believe his term will be seen as remarkable beyond the historic properties.
The one sore spot is of course the auto bailouts. Why should US taxpayers rescue a company that:
1) Has a dwindling share of a constricting industry
2) Can only reorganize itself effectively by moving jobs belonging to the taxpayers offshore
Canadian taxpayers are getting hosed even worse in that regard, with both Chrysler and GM shutting down Canadian plants.
Regarding the auto bailouts, I don’t think that any Government wants to be the one that has the demise of the auto industry occurring on their watch.
True enough. of course this hardly constitutes “change” but again that’s on the heads of O’s acolytes.
Well as you said yourself, it’s the classic case of campaigning to the left (or right) and governing in the centre. In a democracy it just can’t work any other way.
People will end up disillusioned on the far left and there will be some on the right that will say he wasn’t so bad after all.
(IMHO)