Archive for the 'Sound Off Central' Category

Jul 09 2008

President Barack W. Bush?

Published by Chris Cargill under Sound Off Central

This is an interesting article I found from historian Victor Davis Hanson. It coincides with Senator ’s dance to the center, something he’s been doing for weeks now, to try and get more independent support. (The dirty little secret is, he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate) But nevermind that, most candidates, whether they be Republican or Democrat, move to the center after securing their party’s nomination. Obama, though, is moving a little too far for some Democrats. They like to say John McBush or John McSame when referring to Senator . The following article, however, shows just how similar is becoming to… George W. Bush.

Barack W. Bush?

By Victor Davis Hanson

Almost everyone is talking about ’s flip-flops, as the Senate’s most liberal member steadily moves to the political center and disowns firebrands like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger.

But less noticed is that Obama is not just deflating ’s efforts to hold him to his long liberal record, but also embracing much of the present agenda of an unpopular President Bush on a wide variety of fronts.

Take social issues. Obama is now a gun-rights advocate. Like Bush, he applauded the Supreme Court’s overturning of a , D.C., ordinance banning the possession of handguns.

The senator, also like Bush, supports the death penalty. He recently objected to the court’s rejection of a state law that allowed for the execution of child rapists.

And although Obama is still pro-choice, he now, like the president, thinks “mental distress” should not justify late-term abortion.

In addition, the new Obama would like to continue — and even expand — Bush’s controversial faith-based initiative program of involving churches in government anti-poverty programs.

In fact, Obama is sounding a lot these days like those red-state, small-town conservatives he once caricatured in his infamous comment about Pennsylvanians who “cling” to such hot-button, but extraneous, social causes.

Consider also the campaign trail. Like a Republican in good standing — but unlike the maverick — Obama has, by his sudden forgoing of public funds, rejected the idea of campaign-finance reform.

In fact, he’s the largest raiser of private cash in American political history, and seems to have dropped opposition to accepting pernicious “special interest money.” Like a Republican, he raises the most among the nation’s wealthiest on Wall Street.

During the primaries, Obama seemed to advocate the dismantling of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But now candidate Obama has little desire to overturn the present Bush trade policies.

On foreign policy and the war against terror, Obama once leaned left in his primary battles against Hillary Clinton. But his latest mutations move him once again closer to .

For all his prior talk of the loss of civil liberties, a President Obama, like a President Bush, would give telecommunication companies exemption from lawsuits over tapping private phone calls at government request.

Obama wants to continue Bush’s successful multilateral efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now praises the Bush-inspired six-party talks with North Korea that led to the apparent dismantling of Pyongyang’s nuclear program. Like Bush, he advocated expanding the military after the Clinton-era troop cuts. Obama once advocated lifting the embargo against Cuba — but no longer. Like Bush, he thinks that it is wise to leave it be.

There is suddenly not much difference when it comes to the Middle East, either. Palestinian supporters were dismayed to hear Obama promise that Jerusalem must be Israel’s eternal and undivided capital.

Obama once criticized Bush for his unwillingness to meet directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and exaggerating the danger from Iran, which supposedly didn’t “pose any serious threat.” Lately though, he agrees with the president that Iran now in fact is a “grave threat.”

Obama’s most serious about-face is on . He once promised a rigid and rapid timetable for withdrawing our troops. But given the radical success of Gen. David Petraeus’ surge and change in tactics, Obama is now calling for withdrawals to be based on the conditions on the ground in . How different is this plan from the present administration’s policy of incrementally sending home brigades as Petraeus hands off security responsibilities to Iraqis in additional provinces?

It makes political sense that Obama is moving to the center since he knows that a Northern liberal like himself has not won a presidential election since 1960. So don’t expect Obama’s metamorphosis to stop now. Before this campaign is over, he may well flip some more; would anybody be surprised if he starts supporting some of Bush’s proposal for expanded domestic oil drilling or backtracks on raising trillions in new payroll taxes?

In fact, replace ’s Texas twang, cowboy strut and evangelical Bible thumping with ’s mellifluous “hope and change” rhetoric, easy grace and leftwing Christianity and we may discover a flashy new cover to an old book.

A final question: If, even as Obama trashes Bush, he seems to agree with him on so many fronts, why don’t conservatives and Republicans adopt Obama as a welcome convert?

Some may, but most I’ve talked with don’t think Obama is sincere and feel he will flip back to being left wing if elected. Or they think that Obama is changing so fast and so radically that it’s hard to believe he really knows who he is — or would be as president.

Share/Save/Bookmark

One response so far

Jul 08 2008

If Iraqis want us to leave, we must leave… right?

Published by Chris Cargill under Sound Off Central

The Iraqi government is making it very clear any status of forces agreement with the United States must include a timetable for withdrawal. Right now, the Iraqis and U.S. state department are hammering out the details of an agreement that will keep some troops in into next year. The current agreement runs out at the end of 2008. The Iraqis have announced they want any new status of forces agreement to include a timetable for withdrawal. But Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also made it very clear that timetable must take into account the situation on the ground… not just an arbitrary calendar.

The mere fact that seems ready to stand on its own is fantastic news and proof that the surge is working and providing the space the Iraqi government needs to become a functioning democracy. We should all be happy that the Iraqis seem ready to want to take control. So if they do, we must comply and begin an orderly withdrawal. Do we have some say? Sure. It was our blood and treasure that got the Iraqis to this point, and I’m sure they will be forever grateful and will want some of our help for years to come. But ultimately, it’s up to the Iraqis. We fought for their freedom and their democracy, and now they are using it. Still, I am amazed to see this being played up in the media as a victory for and the Democrats. Just because the Iraqis now want us to start removing troops, doesn’t mean we should have started doing that last year or the year before when things were chaotic. The only reason the Iraqis are talking about a withdrawal, is because they believe the situation has stabilized so much so, they can handle it on their own. That, in essence, is a victory for the GOP and those who backed the surge, not those who were calling for us to get out several years ago.

For the past 3-5 years, everyone has asked when will U.S. troops be able to come home. President Bush has continually said when the job is done, and no one really knew what the job was. Well, that ‘job’ may be being completed before our very eyes.

What do you think?

Share/Save/Bookmark

One response so far

Jun 28 2008

Two new presidential ads; one pathetic, the other funny

Published by Chris Cargill under Sound Off Central

Moveon.org produced and is airing this ad, taking on Senator ’s “100 years in ” statement. It’s a pathetic attempt to try and make McCain seem like a heartless man, interested in only war.

McCain has said clearly, while troops could be in for 100 years, its the actual combat and troop casualties that are the determining factor. (As he points out, we still have troops in . We still have troops in South Korea.)

The joy of this year’s presidential campaign is seeing the spoofs of the candidates, and their messages, on YouTube. Take for instance, this guy’s ad on Senator ’s plan to raise some taxes.

To be fair, Obama’s tax increases are very targeted, mostly to the upper-upper class, but you get the point.

What do you think?

Share/Save/Bookmark

8 responses so far

Jun 19 2008

‘Nevermind’… Obama opts out of public financing

Published by Chris Cargill under Sound Off Central

obama.jpgPresidential Candidate today announced he would not accept public financing, despite a pledge to do so if his Republican rival agreed to the same.

Obama, who has set records for fundraising online, told supporters the public financing system is broken, and that his opponents “know how to use and abuse it.”

The public financing system gives each candidate the same amount of money (this year, some $80,000,000) to use for the campaign. But it also places limits on the amount of money each candidate can spend. And it helps to take the dirty money out of campaigns.

Republican already agreed to use public funds and pressured Obama throughout the primary campaign to keep his pledge. But that didn’t happen.

The Democrats, who have complained loudly for years about the fundraising efforts of George W. Bush and the Republicans, now seem to be satisfied they are able to raise just as much money.

What do you think? Should the candidates use public financing?

Share/Save/Bookmark

7 responses so far

Jun 17 2008

Mr. Global Warming’s energy use up 10%

Published by Chris Cargill under Sound Off Central

Former Vice President Al Gore, the man who’s leading the world in the fight against “global warming,” apparently isn’t following his own advice. According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Gore’s Tennessee home energy use has surged more than 10%, even though he made several “energy-efficient” improvements.Former Vice President Al Gore

The article says in the past year, Gore’s home has burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours of electricity- enough to power 232 average American homes for a month. Gore’s average monthly bill is $16,533.

All of this, while Gore continues to fly around the country and the world lecturing people on the dangers of global warming, and calling on people to “reduce their carbon footprint.”

Does anyone else find this a little hypocritical? I, for one, would be much more likely to believe in his cause and his message, if he followed his own advice and led by example.

Share/Save/Bookmark

4 responses so far

« Prev