POLL: Is Obama Qualified Even Without Experience?

Truth of the matter is, folks, NOBODY has the experience of being President of the United States unless they HAVE BEEN President of the United States.  But a topic of debate has been Obama’s youth and relative inexperience on the global stage. I just want to know where you stand on the issue (and because I wanted to play with PollDaddy).

Another Worrisome McCain Trait

In this campaign season, there has been a general sense of excitement and momentum behind one candidate or the other.  But–and I’m ashamed to admit this–I knew there was something missing from the rhetoric, propaganda and mudslinging, that was just out of my mind’s reach.  Barack Obama made a comment in the Nashville debate that jarred my consciousness.  Until Obama stated his three priorities–Energy, Health Care, and Education (doh!)–I couldn’t figure out that we have dealt with clear, but present dangers, such as the credit crisis, the energy crisis and the fronts in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Israel/Palestine…but haven’t really dealt with the most important domestic issue we have, for the sake of our future.  Educating our children should be a matter of national security, and an important topic for any presidential candidates.

I believe in what you’d call almost the stock definition of elitist–The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. I don’t think it’s a crime to believe, especially, that the most intelligent among us deserve the keys to the kingdom. Our children can be highly competitive with the rest of the world, if we’re ready to really invest in their education.  After all, where will the engineers and scientists of the next generation come from, if not from humble beginnings in the American educational system?

This has not been a talking point in much of the large arena from the Democratic or Republican nominee. It has been said that Obama has positive views on funding education, especially Early Childhood and Higher education, but even he has not made more than ten significant statements since the beginning of 2008. McCain, however…

…is rated 45% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. He did not even make the first public statement (which I know is not necessarily policy) concerning education, until June of this year, although he had some really good ideas…in 1999, before No Child Left Behind (NCLB) complicated things. Even still, he managed to have voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. As posted by The Democratic Strategist concerning his comments about porkbarrel spending and earmarks for $3,000,000 projector in a Chigago planetarium:

 Does anyone else out there find it a little odd that Senator McCain is so obsessed with trashing planetariums? I understand that a hefty portion of his base harbors a medieval suspicion of science education in general. But you would think that a Senator, a former pilot at that, who prides himself in being a strong champion of our national security would at least get it that teaching young people about the cosmos is a good way to get them interested in physics, rocket science and the like.

The final paragraph summed it up nicely:

What is even more worrisome is the subtext behind McCain’s contempt for planetariums. It’s not just a reactionary attitude toward science. He has never placed much value on education in general and sees federal investment in education as a waste. If elected, he and Palin could do serious damage to America’s ability to compete in the years ahead with other nations which are making major investments in upgrading their educational systems. It would be hard to devise a quicker way to turn America into a second-rate power than electing the pair of them. One more reason to write another check for Obama.

What about education? If the common response from the Republican side of the fence is, “Who cares? We can’t focus on that until we finish this war…” we are in more trouble than I originally thought.

The Great Debaters

With the Oxford, MS debate last night, my personal jury is still out.  One belief of mine—that we are entitled to some naivety, some faith in humanity’s ability to be reasonable—keeps coming to me as I read the transcript of the debate (I missed it on TV, closing at work again).  The positions and policies that the candidates set forth made me question what the real priorities are, in order for our children to even know the United States our generation grew up in.

Now, as some argued in defense of Palin’s ABC interview failure, a transcript does not give the fine nuances of speech. But I hope I can look objectively at the substance of Obama and McCain’s words. The assumption that Americans refuse to consider ourselves on the same level as the members of other countries…in Europe and some less “established” areas…as human beings makes me a little mad.  But when leveled at us from other countries, I can see the perspective of a French or Italian person that sees a United States bullying around the world, diplomatically, with cheers from the “sidelines”. If they had the opportunity, talking with the average U.S. citizen would reveal that we didn’t want anything but peace and prosperity for all peoples. I can’t think of a single person that wants people to suffer all the time—I feel like even those of us that lost loved ones in the September 11^th attacks would not want other families to suffer as they have had to.

In my opinion, our foreign policy has deeply embarrassed the nation.“World Police” is not exactly a compliment. So the candidates’ responses are important to me, in light of my faith in people.

In every country where tension currently exists, the candidates have distinct policies. Obama tends toward diplomacy, especially where at least some of the tension is our doing. Maybe once we establish with Ahmadinejad what the main reasons for nuclear enrichment are (and I think we might be surprised at Iran’s need for reliable nuclear power—in average citizens’ homes, that is), we can find ways to convince them not to use it for other purposes. Maybe propose ways to help them develop nuclear plants, lending our expertise (or best research) that will form some mutual respect, possibly earning some profit for our science and technology fields at home. Offer to lend them our brightest researchers—only if their safety can guaranteed. Or, bring their brightest developers and scientists to the U.S. for research, assuring them of the best resources and tools we have at our disposal. I agree that preconditions for talks should exist, but we must have some positive reinforcement to go along with any conditions we might set. If I’ve learned anything through teaching, I’ve learned that you get more flies with honey…

Concerning Russia, Obama said:

Now, we also can’t return to a Cold War posture with respect to Russia. It’s important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation.

They have not only 15,000 nuclear warheads, but they’ve got enough to make another 40,000, and some of those loose nukes could fall into the hands of Al Qaida.

This is an area where I’ve led on in the Senate, working with a Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, to deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons. That’s an area where we’re going to have to work with Russia.

But we have to have a president who is clear that you don’t deal with Russia based on staring into his eyes and seeing his soul. You deal with Russia based on, what are your — what are the national security interests of the United States of America?

McCain, however, seemed more on the offensive with his positions:

Again, a little bit of naivety there. He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.

I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K,” a “G,” and a “B.” And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior.

If we put ourselves in Russia’s shoes…say there is some disturbance in Mexico…and it threatens the stability in our region, what would we do? If the past decade is any indication, I’d say U.S. response would be similar in scope. I’m a little young to truly understand what KGB power means to the world, but I do see his point, in that a rational government would have come to Georgia’s aid, unless their government’s agenda is more sinister than we know. I just feel that the smartest thing we could do is know enough to keep an eye on the situation, and remain diplomatically friendly enough with the Russians that they’d be willing to keep us “in the know”. We have kind of betrayed the world’s trust by acting impulsively lately.

McCain also said something about a small part of our financial crisis–the loss of domestic, blue-collar jobs in manufacturing and other industries:

Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.

Now, if you’re a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it’s 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you’re going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.

I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in — in the United States of America and create jobs.

While I realize that many of these jobs will never come back from China, I would like to know the factcheck on this information. I will admit that this part of the crisis stems from some Clinton-era trade deals and some of the deregulation of the present administration, but would McCain’s policy actually help? 

Near the end of the debate, McCain says (in reference to being safer since 9/11), “We have to work more closely with our allies. I know our allies, and I can work much more closely with them.” My reading comprehension is average, at best, but everything stated in the debate suggested that McCain’s strategy or tactic (whichever one’s definition you understand better) could be influenced by impulse, or gut reactions.  We need a leader that will carefully weigh out the possibilities and consequences of national actions, and I can’t really trust that Senator John McCain is that man.

It is true that Senator Barack Obama does not have even a decade of experience in one of the premier legislative branches of the nation.  But how much worth can we attach to experience in “the way things have always been”? Our best chance to adapt to the 21^st century is to change the way we do things in America.  Obama isn’t old enough to be an “institution” in legislature, but he does have rational ideas, and a sensible approach to foreign policy.  It is usually new ideas that lead the United States around the next corner (remember the internet), so we can’t afford cling to policies that no longer work in this brave new world.  He has been criticized as having socialist policies, but I think that maybe balancing out the capitalism in our country with a few facets of the socialist ideology is a good idea, and part of a better long-term solution to our financial woes. 

Perhaps the suggestion (I won’t attribute it to anyone—I can’t remember who said this) that when the government creates the bail-out package, and every American taxpayer pays for it in some way or another, why don’t we award every American taxpayer with a stake in the affected institutions?  A stimulus check comes only once—then it is quickly spent.  How healthy would the economy be if everyone reaped the benefits of the bull market as stockholders? I bet that a little extra cash flow into average citizens’ pockets would boost the economy greatly, especially if it is regarded as a reward for paying taxes in the country.  But, I digress—that issue is another post altogether.  However, If Obama’s views lead us in a similar direction, where every family stands to benefit from taking a chance on saving our country in unorthodox ways…why not try his approach? 

Jihadists hellbent on destroying us aside, all people–not just Americans–have needs of safety and reasonable prosperity.  If we can come to a diplomatic understanding through reasoning with other world leaders, then a little open-mindedness is certainly called for. But these are my opinions. 

Form yours.  Here is a link to the transcript; read it.  Or if you’re more comfortable, watch it. We have to take this election seriously, because there has never been more at stake.

Barack on Budget & Economy

Ok…I’m a bit tired of the personal attacks flying back and forth between the Obama and McCain campaigns (and for the record, if you put lipstick on a pig, it IS still a pig). I know deep down in my soul that I have been part of the problem, but I got distracted by Sarah Barracuda for a minute.   I’m truly interested in the policies that candidates have a position on. So, without further adieu…

Obama’s stance on Budget and Economy

A different economic approach vs. McCain’s 4 more years. (May 2008)

Can’t do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq. (Feb 2008)

Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights. (Feb 2008)

More accountability in subprime mortgages. (Feb 2008)

Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed. (Jan 2008)

Voted against limiting credit to 30%, because 30% too high. (Jan 2008)

Account for every single dollar for new proposed programs. (Jan 2008)

Help the homeowners actually living in their homes. (Jan 2008)

Bankruptcy bill pushed by banks &. (Jan 2008)

Lack of an energy policy is a financial burden. (Jan 2008)

Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out. (Dec 2007)

Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don’t need them. (Dec 2007)

Take China “to the mat” about currency manipulation. (Dec 2007)

Rejects free market vision of government. (Oct 2007)

Regulate financial instruments to protect home mortgages. (Aug 2007)

Government regulation needed for when markets fail. (Aug 2007)

Return to PayGo: compensate for all new spending. (Oct 2006)

Bush’s economic policies are not working. (May 2004)

Supports federal programs to protect rural economy. (May 2004)

Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace. (Jan 2001)

Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)

Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)

 

There are a few standout quotes from these bullet-points:

Part of the reason that Kuwait and others are able to come in and purchase, or at least bail out, some of our financial institutions is because we don’t have an energy policy. We are sending close to a billion dollars a day. A realistic plan is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to invest in solar & wind & biodiesel. That would make a substantial difference in our balance of payments, and that would make a substantial difference in terms of their capacity to purchase our assets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008   

Or this one:

Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Over the last seven years, what we’ve seen is an economy that’s out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we’ve got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they’re seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.
Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?
A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007

 

Update: (9/11) I forgot to mention that this information is courtesy of On The Issues. This website has information on all the candidates, and go back to at least the 90′s. I’ll pick out my favorite ones in the next few days.