Why I hope that Obama is our next president

[KenH]

One of three people will be our next president - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. I hope that person is Barack Obama. Here's why.

Domestic Policy - All three candidates will expand the size and scope of the federal government. Sure, Obama will do so, but I don't think as much as Clinton(example: Obama does not support mandates in health care). Sure, McCain will do so less but, when taking other factors I will get to into account, Obama expanding the federal government, say, 25% to McCain's, say, 20% is not persuasive enough for me to support McCain.

Social Policy - Yes, Obama and Clinton are liberal on social policy pretty much equally as far as I can tell. McCain may have some better rhetoric on some social issues but I do not see him mentioning them very much, if at all, during this fall's campaign and even less so if he is elected president. Also, social issues influence my voting less than they do probably most people who post on this board. There is simply nothing in my anticipation of what a McCain administration will be like to cause social issues to pull my vote to McCain, and social issues don't really differentiate Obama and Clinton.

Foreign Policy - McCain is clearly the hawk among this trio. I do not want to see Iraq become another South Korea and McCain has said that we may have troops for a hundred years and that it would be fine with him. This is unacceptable policy to me. I also think that McCain would be more likely to be influenced by the neo-cons to keep up the saber rattling towards Iran and potentially start a war with Iran. Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq(as did I) and now wants an orderly withdrawal(as do I). However, she made the same mistake on the vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards(which I opposed) that can very easily result eventually in the Bush or a McCain administration attacking Iran. Obama was right to oppose the Iraq invasion from the start(as I wish I had) and opposed the vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards(as did I). Obama wrote what I found to be an excellent essay on his overall foreign policy in Foreign Affairs last year.

To me, the clearest differentiation in these three candidates is on foreign policy and when all three areas are taken into account I arrive at hoping that Obama will be our next president.

That does not mean that he will receive my vote in November. If Arkansas is a competitive state that will make my voting for him more likely. If Arkansas is non-competitive state then I may end up voting for the Libertarian Party candidate.

 

[Ps104_33]

To go from Ron Paul to Barak Obama defies reason.

 

[tinytim]

To go from Ron Paul to Barak Obama defies reason.

When you can't beat em, join em.:laugh:

 

[billwald]

I'll vote for him because it will be amusing to see what effect his election will have on his minority group.

 

[KenH]

To go from Ron Paul to Barak Obama defies reason.

In your mind does going from Ron Paul to John McCain or Hillary Clinton not defy reason?

 

[tinytim]

In your mind does going from Ron Paul to John McCain or Hillary Clinton not defy reason?

In my mind, even considering voting for Ron Paul defies reason....

I watched him on Glenn Beck about a month ago, and he told Glenn that he as for abolishing the IRS...

Glenn asked him what he would replace it with,

Paul's response... the country did fine without the IRS a 150 yrs ago, we don't need it now....

He never did give a plan....
I knew then that this guy is koooky... .along with his conspiracy theories...

 

[KenH]

along with his conspiracy theories

I have never heard Ron Paul promote a conspiracy theory.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Doesn't Huckabee want to get rid of the IRS too?

 

[Revmitchell]

I have never heard Ron Paul promote a conspiracy theory.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.
"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."


http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/07/13/ron-paul-conspiracy-theorist/
​

 

[KenH]

I would like to read the entire 2-3 paragraphs within context. Can you provide them?

Not that it matters. Ron Paul is a non-factor in the 2008 presidential race. I've moved on to the Obama campaign now.

 

[Revmitchell]

I provided a link to the article. Outside of that you'll have to wade through Alex Jones propaganda. However, there is no other set of discussions that could ever change the obvious context we see. It is quite like Carpo's signature. It is what it is.

 

[saturneptune]

One has to be consistant. I agree with PS 104. How can a Paul supporter relate to Obama?

From day one, Democrats were not a consideration. They are bad for this nation, way beyond the Republicans. Giuliani and Romney were not a consideration because of social and honesty issues. As candidates drop out and the scene changes, the consistancy of belief in what is best for this country should not.

This is a dilemma for conservatives, no doubt. If one cannot stomach McCain, the answer is not to vote for Democrats. Rush, Glen, Shawn, Dobson, and the rest who have made this statement are out of their minds. Again, I could care less what an entertainer thinks or says.

McCain is not the Republican I would have voted for in the primary. (not till May here). He is a close call. Right now, he is not someone that I could vote for. That means voting for maybe the CP nominee.

We have come way down in our standards to elect our leaders. Years ago, it was a difference in philosophy of government, and one assumed each of the two had a basic level of honesty. Not that this is the exact case, but maybe 50 years ago, we had a choice of two rather high quality candidates with a difference of opinion. Now, we are reduced to feeling comfortable voting for a thief because the other one is a murderer.

300 million Americans, and these are the finalists? What is wrong with the system? Maybe who we choose is but a reflection of us.

 

[Dagwood]

One has to be consistant. I agree with PS 104. How can a Paul supporter relate to Obama?

From day one, Democrats were not a consideration. They are bad for this nation, way beyond the Republicans. Giuliani and Romney were not a consideration because of social and honesty issues. As candidates drop out and the scene changes, the consistancy of belief in what is best for this country should not.

This is a dilemma for conservatives, no doubt. If one cannot stomach McCain, the answer is not to vote for Democrats. Rush, Glen, Shawn, Dobson, and the rest who have made this statement are out of their minds. Again, I could care less what an entertainer thinks or says.

McCain is not the Republican I would have voted for in the primary. (not till May here). He is a close call. Right now, he is not someone that I could vote for. That means voting for maybe the CP nominee.

We have come way down in our standards to elect our leaders. Years ago, it was a difference in philosophy of government, and one assumed each of the two had a basic level of honesty. Not that this is the exact case, but maybe 50 years ago, we had a choice of two rather high quality candidates with a difference of opinion. Now, we are reduced to feeling comfortable voting for a thief because the other one is a murderer.

300 million Americans, and these are the finalists? What is wrong with the system? Maybe who we choose is but a reflection of us.

You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. On the one hand you, over and over, claim there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats, then you claim:

"From day one, Democrats were not a consideration. They are bad for this nation, way beyond the Republicans."

Please make up your mind on this issue.

 

[saturneptune]

You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. On the one hand you, over and over, claim there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats, then you claim:

"From day one, Democrats were not a consideration. They are bad for this nation, way beyond the Republicans."

Please make up your mind on this issue.

It would be good of you to reread the posts. I said there was very little difference between Republicans and Democrats in relation to the threat of a third party taking power from them, as they now have 100% of the power, and how those differences would disappear if their power base were ever threatened. I also said if Romney or Giuliani were nominated, there would be little or no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

My mind is clear on the subject and quite made up. Those who were Republican nominees that would have made a difference have already lost.

And never once, did I for a second think the solution to the dilemma for conservatives this year was to vote for the Democratic liberal agenda. It sounds to me like you need a course in political science or government. There is more to this than being a spokesman for the left.

 

[JGrubbs]

In my mind, even considering voting for Ron Paul defies reason....

I watched him on Glenn Beck about a month ago, and he told Glenn that he as for abolishing the IRS...

Glenn asked him what he would replace it with,

Paul's response... the country did fine without the IRS a 150 yrs ago, we don't need it now....

He never did give a plan....
I knew then that this guy is koooky... .along with his conspiracy theories...

In that same interview Dr. Paul stated that if we took away the revenue the Federal government gets from income tax today that they would have the same ammount of revenue coming in that they did 10 years ago. He went on to say that the plan would be to cut federal spending to bring the spending level down to what it was 10 years ago, and it would balance out. Glenn Beck took notes and invited Ron Paul back on his radio show later to discuss the economy, Beck brought up this income tax discussion from his radio show and said:

GLENN: When you were on my program on television, you said something that I didn't correct because I didn't -- I mean, it sounded so outlandish but I let it go because I didn't have the facts and you sounded so convinced of it that I thought, hmmm, I've got to check into that and I'll correct it the next time he's on or I'll correct it the next day. What you said was, if we got rid of the income tax, the Government would still take about the same amount of money in as they had ten years ago.

PAUL: Approximately.

GLENN: We looked into it and it's accurate. Can you explain that and how do we get that message out to people?

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/4897/

 

[Martin]

Domestic Policy - All three candidates will expand the size and scope of the federal government. Sure, Obama will do so, but I don't think as much as Clinton

==I could not disagree with that statement more if I tried. Obama seems like a nice guy and he is certainly a wonderful public speaker. However he is a liberal in every sense of the term. He believes that government is the answer to our nation's social problems. Therefore he believes in growing government to fix those problems. In fact Obama maybe the most dangerous candidate in the race since I believe he is a true liberal. Hillary Clinton is a liberal but, believe it nor not, somewhat more moderate and willling to be influenced by polls (etc). Obama is a true blue liberal and would do real damage to our nation. I heard his speech last night on CNN and it frightened me. It sounded like he wants to establish some sort of socialist state where the government punishes the wealthy and gives free money/benefits to the lazy.

In short, I will work for any Republican to defeat Hillary Clinton. However I will work extra hard for any Republican to defeat Barak Obama. That is not personal, like I said I think he is a nice person. However I believe his policies are dangerous.

 

[Dagwood]

It would be good of you to reread the posts. I said there was very little difference between Republicans and Democrats in relation to the threat of a third party taking power from them, as they now have 100% of the power, and how those differences would disappear if their power base were ever threatened. I also said if Romney or Giuliani were nominated, there would be little or no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Thank you for this explanation.

My mind is clear on the subject and quite made up. Those who were Republican nominees that would have made a difference have already lost.

So, what do you perceive to be the differences between McCain and Clinton or Obama.

And never once, did I for a second think the solution to the dilemma for conservatives this year was to vote for the Democratic liberal agenda.

So, will you vote for the republican liberal agenda, since McCain is considered a liberal republican by the party establishment?

It sounds to me like you need a course in political science or government. There is more to this than being a spokesman for the left.

I have taken college courses in both political science and in government, but thank you showing concern about my education. Perhaps you can loan me money and, if so, I will start work on my Masters immediately.

BTW, I am no spokesman for the left. I only offer my opinions about politics and which candidate will be the best for the country. In this upcoming election, I feel that the democratic candidate, whether it's Obama or Clinton, will be better than the republican alternative.

 

[KenH]

And never once, did I for a second think the solution to the dilemma for conservatives this year was to vote for the Democratic liberal agenda.

The liberal foreign policy is closer to my views on foreign policy than the views of the neo-cons who run foreign policy in the GOP.

 

[KenH]

I could not disagree with that statement more if I tried.

That's fine. That's what makes a horse race.

 

[Brother Bob]

I think I will have to drop out of the race, finances you know!

BBob,