Tue, 16 Sep 2008

And Now For A Reality Check

Looking over the past few posts I've made, you might conclude that I'm a die hard Obamaniac.

While it's true I think Obama is going to be a huge improvement over Bush, and would make a substantially better president than McCain, and that he'll get my vote in November, he's less than the ideal candidate, nor is Biden.

Back in February 2007, I wrote about the "Bridge to Nowhere". I said:

I wanted to know, what rat bastards voted with Stevens to spend over $200M on a bridge to serve 50 people when that money could have been earmarked to rebuild bridges damaged by Katrina?

Well, the list isn't flattering. Sure you'll see Brownback, Frist, Hatch, Lott, and Santorum voting with Stevens-- and I suppose career politicians like Kennedy, Kerry, and Lieberman aren't too surprising either. But does it stop there? Sadly, no. Biden. Clinton. Dodd. Feinstein. Durbin. Harkin. Obama. All of them (sadly, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell too!) voted against the amendment that Coburn put forth.
For the record, McCain did "Not Vote" on these bills (copout!).

Then again, in July, I wrote:
Barack Obama disappointed me when he recently voted for the "Telecom Immunity" package allowing for warrantless eavesdropping on US citizens.

While it's fairly likely that Obama will win in November, what if he doesn't? That should be the standard by which any legislation is judged-- not "what is the implication of this policy when used properly", but rather "what is the implication of this policy when intentionally abused?"

I will no longer actively participate in the Obama campaign, and I will no longer make quarterly donations to his campaign. Barring a more viable candidate joining the race, I'll still vote for Barack, but without the taste of kool-aid in my mouth.
So by these measures, I acknowledge that Obama and Biden fall short of the golden standard. Having said that, they have demonstrated substantially better judgement, poise, and collective experience than the competition.
Be generous, share: Digg This! | Add to Del.icio.us | Have you Reddit?| Stumble It!


Comments are closed for this story

vaitkadamas -- writes:

I prefer the term "Obot". Its much easier to say. As to whether Obama/Biden are the best candidates, I have predicted an Obama Hangover. It has already started for some but will get serious after the election and will parallel the same phenomenon back in 1993 after Clinton was elected. Beware generic "change" candidates. People want specific changes and few people want the exact same specific changes. The hangover begins when your candidate changes less than you wanted or changes different things or different ways than you wanted when you voted for "change". A better system would focus more on specific changes and specific policies and less on electing PartyA or PartyB.



An idea for a website...

Step 1: Register the domain IsSarahPalinQualifiedTo.Com (it's available!)
Step 2: Build a form where visitors can type in anything into a form field.
Step 3: When they click "Submit", send them here.

Here are a few questions I would put into the Palin Oracle:
Is Sarah Palin Qualified To... give you a root canal? Answer
Is Sarah Palin Qualified To... fly a 747? Answer
Is Sarah Palin Qualified To... operate a nuclear reactor? Answer
Is Sarah Palin Qualified To... perform your vasectomy? Answer
Is Sarah Palin Qualified To... teach differential calculus? Answer
Is Sarah Palin Qualified To... compile a kernel? Answer

You get the idea. (If you really get carried away you might try questions like "Balance the budget", or "Negotiate a Peace Treaty" or "Fix the economy" or "Reduce Teenage Pregnancy")

Have fun!

Be generous, share: Digg This! | Add to Del.icio.us | Have you Reddit?| Stumble It!


Comments are closed for this story

Colophon

Written using MacVim
Published by Blosxom
Layout: Blueprint CSS