Get On The Bandwagon
Senator Barack Obama will intensify his assault against Senator John McCain, with new television advertisements and more forceful attacks by the candidate and surrogates beginning Friday morning, as he confronts an invigorated Republican presidential ticket and increasing nervousness in the Democratic ranks.
It should now be clear to everyone that Obama's strategy of being above it all and avoiding the dirty side of politics was always a tactic, to be tossed aside when it no longer worked. I'm not saying he shouldn't adopt a new strategy or that he should be faulted for turning a little mean. If people hadn't claimed he's a different kind of politician this wouldn't even be worth noting.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:08 AM
9 Comments:
Indeed. As it should be similarly obvious that his opponent, who built his reputation on "straight talk," and opposition to lying smear campaings, is equally willing to ditch that approach when he finds himself behind. So, in the end, how about we just decide based on their positions on the issues, rather than buying either of their overarching "themes"?
Or we could vote on their record. Oh, wait, that's the problem, isn't it?
With McCain, you have a 22-year record of service that you can investigate, laud or sneer at, if you so choose. With Obama, you have...what, exactly? Obama's record in the state senate is perfunctory, his record in congress is highly abridged, in that he has been running for President for all but 150 days of it. His record as a "community organizer" is largely unexamined (and what has come to light is not something I'd brag about on my resume) and his role in the CAC and his relationship with Bill Ayers is not only not vetted but something he's actively tried to hide.
So what we're left with for Obama is what he's said on the campaign trail, some of which is just wrong (not admitting he was mistaken about the surge) and some of which he's already altered his position on (FISA, anyone?).
I don't think anybody (including Obama) truly knows how he'll govern until he's elected. And, ironically - for me, at least - we're left with Bill Clinton to have the final word:
Whether government can actually deliver becomes quite important. It becomes in a way, THE question. Suppose for example you're a voter. And you have Candidate X and Candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom will you vote?
Regardless of how much you may agree with Obama - or disagree with McCain - do you really think he'll be able to deliver on his promises?
VG asks, quite reasonably:
Regardless of how much you may agree with Obama - or disagree with McCain - do you really think he'll be able to deliver on his promises?
Yes. First, and most importantly, he'll undoubtedly appoint at least one, and likely two, US Supreme Court justices. That will solve half my concerns, because I presume he'll tend toward judges who take a more protective view of civil liberties. With McCain, I have no bloody clue whatsoever what I'd get except most certainly the end of Roe v. Wade.
With regard to tax policy, because I have little doubt that he'll have a Democratic congress to work with, he'll have two years to get a lot done. It won't be a filibuster-proof majority, so there will be limits and compromises, but I think that's all to the good.
On all other subjects, beats me. But those two are enough.
QG, I'm curious. When you say that - with regards to tax policy - Obama will have two years to get a lot done, what exactly is it that you expect him to do?
Make income taxes more progressive, mostly. I'm really not that worried about the issue, truly, but I think a bit of pullback from the widening gaps between the rich and middle class is worthwhile for our social health.
There is no bigger difference between the left and right than taxes. Forget that Bush dropped the lower rates far more than the higher rates, and the top 5% of earners pay most of the income tax, it's simply impossible to tax the rich enough as far as the Democrats are concerned. As far as "social health" is concerned, taxing the rich and then burning their money would be better than doing nothing.
t's simply impossible to tax the rich enough as far as the Democrats are concerned
I'm always curious why people make statements like this. Do you seriously believe that Democrats would favor a 100% taxation rate? Or are you simply expressing frustration through hyperbole? I mean, it's just such an obviously false and foolish thing to say that I can't imagine how you convince yourself that it makes you look good and Democrats look bad.
Well, while we're on the subject, QG, what would you consider to be the proper tax rate on the "rich"? And, who, for the purposes of this discussion, would qualify as being rich?
I think a top marginal income tax rate in the 40-42% range is high enough to increase the progressiveness of the system without creating disincentives to hard work. Similarly, a 20% capital gains tax rate seems about right to me. Of course, just to contradict myself, I strongly disfavor lowering tax rates for the lowest marginal brackets. Having done the tax returns of friends who make 20k or thereabouts, it quickly becomes a question of how much the government is paying you, rather than vice versa.
Post a Comment
<< Home