The voters have spoken again. Here are some random thoughts on the elections of 2008:
*Millions of diverse people poured their hopes into the candidacy of Barack Obama. In a figurative sense, he was an empty vessel that individuals filled with their definition of what change should be. It is impossible for President-Elect Obama or any human being to be everything that every supporter wants him to be. He must define himself now. Will that process of definition diminish his wide base of support or reinforce it?
*Obama begins his presidency as a role model on several levels. He has smashed the remnants of any perceived barrier to an African-American holding the highest office in the land. He is also a high profile example of a dedicated father committed to his family, a role that young men of all races and stations of life should emulate.
*Obama won the election by securing enough middle-of-the-road votes to insure his victory. Will he face down some of the more extreme elements of his base and his party and govern from the middle, or will he attempt to move left of center in his governance?
*How will the Republican Party respond to two successive elections of significant losses in Congress? Will new leadership emerge? Will they become champions of fiscal reform or will they continue to be no different from the Democrats on earmarks, deficit spending, expansion of entitlements, and other fiscal issues that have led fiscal conservatives to look upon them with disgust?
*The GOP has lost favor with too much of the middle class. How will it fashion a new direction to maintain a commitment to conservative principles while making the party more in tune with the issues that working-class Americans hold dear?
*How blue will the Blue Dogs be? Many of the seats gained by the Democrats in the last two election cycles have come from relatively conservative districts. The Democratic Party recruited moderate candidates to run in them, individuals who parlayed pro-gun, pro-life, and fiscal conservative platforms into electoral success. While doing so, they also married themselves to the groups that provide the principal sources of money to Democrats: labor unions and trial lawyers. Can the Blue Dogs continue to pull off this balancing act? Will they oppose their liberal leadership on issues of importance to their more conservative constituents?
*How will President-Elect Obama and the Democrats in Congress respond to deteriorating economic conditions? Will they go forward with the income and capital gains tax increases they campaigned for—taxes that could significantly worsen the economy? Will they impose a direct or indirect tax on energy production and consumption, further driving up the cost of living for Americans? Will they make significant cuts in defense spending to fund new or expanded social programs?
*How will Barack Obama handle the growing menace of Russia, the strategic transfer of military obligations in Iraq, the deepening war in Afghanistan, the development of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, our relationship with Israel, and the quixotic regime in North Korea?
The vote on November 4 was historic and, perhaps, transformational. In a real sense, it raises many more questions than it answers. Despite his immense popularity at home and abroad, Barack Obama remains a fairly undefined entity as he prepares to occupy the Oval Office. He faces an uncertain economy, terrorist threats, the management of two wars, and expectations almost unparalleled in modern history. The voters have placed their confidence in him to handle these challenges. History will judge him on how he responds.
Time will tell what kind of man Obama actually is, will he govern(not rule) with the best interest of the United States first and foremost or will he pay back the unions and special interests that helped get him elected. The democratically controlled Congress has the lowest approval ratings ever...much lower than Pres. Bush's ratings. We need another reagan who would tell Congress and the press to kiss it when necessary...we haven't had that type of refreshing leadership since he left office. Like him or hate him, he got things done and got us out of the Carter & democratically controlled Congresses mess. Written by Sid
on 11/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I'm always a bit suspicious when I hear people use superlatives when describing something during the time they live. You know... "the worst crises" etc., etc. I suspect it is folks having an exaggerated sense of self importance. ... or they are not very familiar with history. Personally , I do not know enough about each and every oneof our presidents to rate any of them in my lifetime either best or worst. I suspect that's true with George W. Bush's detractors. Written by kpf
on 11/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
“””””””””””His legacy should be sealed, the worst president in aAmerican history.””””” I am not sure of that at all….. For all practical purposes it would appear that President Bush may have been quite the strategist…. I think right now is the time for every black person in America that voted for Barrack Obama owes it to President Bush to get down on their hands and knees and kiss his white ass…… Right in the crack…….. If it were not for President Bush, history would never have had a chance to be made in such a fashion as it is now being broadly proclaimed around the world…… From as near as I can tell, President Bush gave the American public everything on every account that it yearned for….. The dollars were flying like cow plop and buffalo chips during a tornado through America’s heartland…… He allowed the American public in general the liberty to do whatever and however it pleased…… From the first all volunteer fighting force since the inception of the idea of us becoming a free nation, to the ability to make vast amounts of money from real estate, stocks, bonds, money lending, cheap labor, cheap imports, hell even illicit drug use and sales skyrocketed during his administration….. And why? Because that is what the American public demanded and pursued…….. With the approval of Congress the whole time through…….. Yeah Al, you are quite the scholarly opinionated one there on that keen observation….. And now, upon his departure from Washington D.C., he is allowing the American public to do exactly what it always screams for; “The right to take their destinies into their own hands and act upon their individual inclinations”…………………. I believe President Bush was very democratic during his tenure……. And now, well, it’s up to y’all……… Written by
on 11/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tax and force......... Possibly a very real scenario for the upcomming 4 years.... Time will tell.... But in the politically correct environment we have fostered, to register any form of dissent will probably become a crime....... And depending upon who is saying what about whom, it may even be considered as a hate crime........ Enter the mind police, and interesting little tactics like tele-medicine which will be enforced under sanctions provided by both Federal and State rulings, the position of the suspension of Habeus Corpus..... I believe the ground work has already been lain, and I believe that is also one of Jindals grand plans or ambitions also now isn't it? Republicans? Democrats? Socialists? Marxists? One of my questions would be; "What are we going to do with 1/4 million national guardsmen that are going to be deactivated and don't have a job to tend to once they arrive back home? Written by
on 11/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It's simple Al, this country is split near equal "Red/Blue" - 40% each to the two major parties, 20% swing voters. So about 40% will vote Democratic (the other 40% Republican) no matter how stupid, dishonest or immoral that office holder may be. Nothing new, the way it's always been and remains to this day. Really, it becomes very obvious once one loses faih in both major parties... that is, how partian and blind people are to their own party's politicians "faults' and how hypocritical they are condemning the opposition party's politicians when they are guilty of the same offenses. Perhaps I'm being cynical, perhaps it's really as simple as someone has certain beliefs they want government to support, and will vote for the candidate whose party will support (or not oppose) these core political beliefs. Written by kpf
on 11/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
One thing is for sure. Obama won't get the benefit of the doubt like George W. He won't be given 8 years to see if he's worth his salt. How we ever gave that idiot George W. a vote of confidence as he lead us all to "Mission Accomplished" is beyond me. His legacy should be sealed, the worst president in aAmerican history. Written by Al
on 11/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Ahhhhh,,, but what about the problems caused by government that causes the debasement of progress, and therefore has a shackling effect that reverberates throughout the citizenry? You speak of greed… Greed on who’s part…. If government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, then perhaps it is the person that’s at the core root of this paradox? Or perhaps the people simply have a bunch of jackbooted bullies running things? Perhaps we breed a culture of chaos so that the important issues are lost in the haze and hidden from view? Perhaps our culture is being manipulated with detrimental paradoxes being established so that people no longer are capable of distinguishing the essence of value or worth, or between healthy ambitions over haughty aspiration…. I guess anything is possible if enough media dollars and advertisment duckets are tossed around in favor of promoting a certain direction.... Written by
on 11/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
oops.. I meant to add that government should not be "funneling" too much money OUT of the economy however as that is counter productive. Unfortunatey there are too many Americans who believe the government (that is "more responsible citizens than themselves") should bail them out of every jam their greed, poor judgement or just plain laziness gets them into. Written by kpf
on 11/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"... if the GOP wants to have a strong brand that is how they should brand themselves -- provided that they deliver on that promise..." - AGREE "...taxing and spending plans of the candidates of both parties..." - The problems with tax and spending PLANS are many. SOME "tax increases" actually result in LESS revenue (for the same reason higher gas prices result in less gasoline being used) SOME "tax cuts" result in tax revenue increases (MORE activity causes this) and unfortunately all too often government's projected cost of any project is well below its final, actual cost (often by a factor of MANY TIMES the original projected cost, be this AFDC or any military incursion). So "tax and spending plans" should not be mistaken for the actual revenue/costs. "What does matter is effectively addressing the current economic situation." - the government can make the economy worse in so many ways, time does not allow me to list how (generally - whether we are speaking of regulations or a fiasco such as the Community Reinvestment Act, bailouts which prevent business from actually improving <Detroit automobile manufacturers as but one example> or whatever the lastest "craze" is, it is all too often government benefiting one group {unions, large campaign contributors, etc} over another segment of the population. As far as "the test of how great society we are is not in how effectively we funnel resources to those who already have plenty but in how effectively we can create opportunities for those who don't to enjoy a strong quality of life" - I could not agree more.
Written by kpf
on 11/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
What party was in power during the Carter years, hmmmmm? Written by Sid
on 11/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The answer to the question is that the Bush administration proposed in their budget and the GOP-controlled Congress passed the very expensive Medicare bill. I might say that those who aren't guilty should not be casting stones, however I do concede that Bush never did really run as an economic conservative. It would be my suggestion that if the GOP wants to have a strong brand that is how they should brand themselves -- provided that they deliver on that promise, which heretofore they have not. The comparison between McCain's and Obama's highlighted, too, how the taxing and spending plans of the candidates of both parties entailed deficits with McCain's plans actually entailing the larger deficit. Not, of course, that that matters a whole lot now. What does matter is effectively addressing the current economic situation. "It's the economy, stupid..." once again. I perceive that Obama is quite willing to sit down and negotiate. I don't see him as someone who's that ideologically rigid. I hope that the other side won't be, either, and with the changes in the political landscape now I sense that perhaps more than a few Republicans are coming to their senses and realizing that they, too, are much better served if they will be willing to work together with the other side and hash things out. I strongly agree with Obama's emphasis on the middle class, however. To somewhat paraphrase Roosevelt, the test of how great society we are is not in how effectively we funnel resources to those who already have plenty but in how effectively we can create opportunities for those who don't to enjoy a strong quality of life. Written by Moderate Independent Voice
on 11/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
As I said before NO PARTY has had power to do what they wish to as neither party has had control of the Presidency and House with a filabuster-proof Senate (at least not in my lifetime {53} that I am aware). Therefore compromise has always been required (do you really think the Republican Party wanted the "No Child Left Behind" initiative that had Teddy Kennedy smiling from ear-to-ear?). Look, MIV, I do hope our new president turns out to be the person this country needs to have in office - that's why he received my vote - but to be this person he will have to stand in opposition to the entrenched special interests in D.C. These special interests have influence in both parties and - now that the Democrats are in power - it is their special interests that pose the greatest threat to progress and prosperity in this country. I truly hope Barak Obama is a President who places the interests of the people above that of his party's big campaign donors. Time will tell. Written by kpf
on 11/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Which party was in control of both the White House and Congress when the 2003 Medicare benefits bill got passed? Written by Moderate Independent Voice
on 11/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Both parties have their own special interests. What I cannot fathom is the Democrats attempting to provide "Universal Healthcare" and all the other extremely expensive programs they desire without cutting (better yet "eliminating") unnecessary government spending. If they try to up the deficit (I LAUGH at those who blame Republicans for deficit spending - really.... watch these bills being crafted on C-Span or C-Span II, you will see the pork both parties - but PARTICULARLY Democrats - add to bills above and beyond what is necessary) by giving "everybody everything" then I hope the 40+ Republicans in the Senate do what is needed to prevent this burden on today's tax payers and generations yet unborn. Written by kpf
on 11/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
My concern is that he stand up to Congress as well as special interests, but he is overseeing a Congress that is a democratic majority and democrats love special interests. Written by Sid
on 11/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Con men are good at "looking and sounding like" what we want to see and hear. I do hope our next president has the intelligence and courage to stand up for what's right for the people of this country and not just be a puppet of the big banking interests. We shall see. Written by kpf
on 11/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
That's true about Ray Nagin. I hope very much Obama doesn't turn out that way. He tried to make a little joke and it came out poorly, and while it seems like he is trying to let people know that he isn't all about only being super serious 100 percent of the time, still, humor is not quite his forte (both he and McCain were featured guests at the Al Smith dinner in New York City and McCain was actually very funny). What would be more problematic would be if Obama were trying to be serious and yet saying something foolish, like Nagin has done many times. However, so far when Obama has tried to play it straight and be serious he's been exactly that, and no one could possibly have maintained his calm and control and acted with such discipline through such a very long campaign and especially with his opponent throwing so much at him any better than he did. If I were him I would be feeling immense pressure. He's got to be feeling that as the first black person to be president his every move and every statement will be under tremendous scrutiny and then we all know how the Republicans kept up their constant effort to nail the Clintons for the whole 8 years (and, yes, Democrats have been guilty of the same thing during GOP administrations). Then, of course, there's the economy and national security challenges to be dealt with. Written by Moderate Independent Voice
on 11/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Work with it, around it, through it, or over it is my only suggestion........ President Bush set the tempo during his last State of the Union address..... It was a very short sentence, actually it was two minor statements during the course of the dialog, but they very telling..... President elect Obama would be very wise to sieze upon those small nuggets of advice offered up, and Congress would be wiser still to forge an understanding of the depth and scope of the paradigm that currently sits on their plate.... I am going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and hope that he makes correct choices and stands firmly behind them... It will indeed turn out that the future, whatever form it takes on, all depends upon thoughtful approach and prudent execution.... We very well may be on the cusp of great things to come if we collectively apply ourselves to the business and tasks at hand with consideration of the generations to come at the forefront as the reasonings for our attentions.... Written by
on 11/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
We're finally getting to see what a real president is suppose to look and sound like? What a laugh! It seems Mr Obama will be the national version of our very own Ray Nagin. In his first press conference, O put his foot in his mouth with some ridiculous and embarrasing comment about Nancy Reagan for which he has already apologized.The appointment of left wing, partisan jackass Rahm Emanual is very telling about which direction he will lean. The left wing kook fringe of the party is not about to relinquish power.Remember, Jesse Jackson threatened to cut off O's balls when he seemed to moving to the center on the federal housing issue. Stand by, it's going to be a fun 4 years. Written by poboy1
on 11/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Yes, absolutely, I would hope and expect for the president to gather the brightest and most experienced experts, to listen to them and act on their advice when there is a crisis instead of recklessly deciding what to do first and then trying to get justification for it later, like Bush did. We're finally getting to see after 8 years what a real president is supposed to look and sound like. Written by Moderate Independent Voice
on 11/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The notion of George W. Bush as a good wartime president is patently ridiculous. How about finally getting bin Laden? Why no plan at all for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion? Bush will go down in history as one of least intelligent, least competent commanders in chief ever. Written by Moderate Independent Voice
on 11/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The idea of a "permanent majority" by either party is a myth. Both parties change to reflect what the voters want, much as manufacturers will change what products they produce to meet the desires of the consumers. That is the "change" I like, the powerful and mighty altering what they offer to please the man on the street. Written by kpf
on 11/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Mr. Obama's grandmother just passed away, is he going to the funeral, is there a funeral? Written by Sid
on 11/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Not sure I agree with that assessment. Bush was not governing from the far right, he was more of moderate with free spending habits. And just because Obama voted with landrieu doesn't mean he is more center leaning. He hasn't been in the Senate long enough to establish any credentials other than being very liberal and not bipartisan at all. Bush was a good war time President, he did not govern by the polls as Clinton did. The economic debacle we are in was brought about by Congress. Can Mr. Obama lead? Or is he going to form a commission every time we have a crisis? Written by Sid
on 11/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Barack Obama is a tranformational figure, not an empty vessel. This election was what political scientists would call a re-aligning election. It was made possible because George W. Bush and the GOP over-reached and governed from the far right despite two extremely close presidential elections. Barack Obama is unlikely to be so foolish as to govern from the extreme left. After all, he votes with Mary Landrieu 81% of the time and she is a centrist Democrat who often draws complaints from liberal interest groups. Obama will govern from the center-left and will reach out to moderate Republicans who have been embarassed by the extremism of their own party. That's how you build a permanent majority for your party. Written by David Quidd
on 11/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
