newprotest.org: BACK BARACK?

BACK BARACK?

January 16, 2007
by: jovial_cynic
There's a bit of buzz that has surrounded Barack Obama for the last few months, and now that he's officially taking steps towards the presidency, his name has hit all the mainstream newspapers.

On his own site, you can watch or read his statement about forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee.

Here are some key points in his message that ring true for me:

Our economy is changing rapidly, and that means profound changes for working people. Many of you have shared with me your stories about skyrocketing health care bills, the pensions you've lost and your struggles to pay for college for your kids. Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk. And we're still mired in a tragic and costly war
...

But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

And that's what we have to change first.

...

Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things. (emphasis mine)


Is Barak the man for the job? Does he have my support? Time will tell. We'll see how he proposes to fix some of the issues he's addressed.
np category: politics
tags:

COMMENTS for BACK BARACK?


Luke said:
C'mon he's served 2 years (one half) of a SENATE term. Being a Senator doesn't equip a person for the presidency. He's never been a governor of a state, managed a budget, or been in any kind of control at all. I'm not against his run eventually but c'mon get a little experience before you decide to run for heaven's sakes alive.

He's a front runner I think because most...nay all other Democrat runners are pitifully boring and dull to listen and watch. Obama is the only one with any charisma. But charisma isn' enough. Hell, Hitler had charisma (not that Barack is anything like Hitler).

My vote for front runners is undecided at the moment. I don't like any of the 'Publicans, and despise most of the Demogogs (Hilary, Kerry, Kucinich, etc...). They're all secular progressives.

I just want someone who's got character, and a reputation for being a person who literally does the general will of the people (without being the extreme of a puppet).

Maybe a follow up post on why you think Barack is qualified would be good in time? Education gives a man the ability to read well, write well, speak well, but decisions take experience. Experience is by far, the best teacher and something that unfortunately for me, kills the Barack ticket.

Oh, and I LOVE FOX NEWS!!!!!!!!

;-)

January 16, 2007


jovial_cynic said:
"Maybe a follow up post on why you think Barack is qualified would be good in time?"

Sure. But I didn't say I think he's qualified. I just said I agree with his positions on the issues I quoted. The next step is to see if he has some reasonable proposals to deal with those issues. If he comes up with good ideas to fix the problems, then I'll decide if I think he's qualified.

And I think we disagree with the requirements for qualification. I understand what you're saying about experience, but maybe somebody that's sat on a political seat for years and years is exactly who we don't want as president. I've said before that the problem with politicians is that in order to have staying power, one has to play politics and be good at it. And I don't support anybody that's good at playing politics. It's like voting for the best crook. It just doesn't make sense.

So... what do you think does prepare a person to lead a nation?

January 16, 2007


The Conservative Manifesto said:
What does it take to prepare a person to lead a nation?

I suppose various characteristics and experiences. However, this is probably a good start: Biography

=)

January 16, 2007


Republican strong said:
John Mccain for president.
January 16, 2007


jovial_cynic said:
Romney's biography is pretty impressive. I am instinctively concerned about his religious background, however. LDS are aggressive prosthelizers, and the association between that and Romney's wife's faith-based agenda sends red flags all over the place for me. Tying religion and politics together always hits me right in the gag reflex.
January 16, 2007


Luke said:
I would have to agree with Mark. Romney looks pretty good at the present. I'm not a big fan of McCain, Gulliani, et al ;)

I think Romney looks okay minus his changing views on abortion. That's a hot button issue for me seeing as how its the state sponsored, systematic mass murder of tens of millions of children and counting all the while it is being denied as life by its supporters. I think its as wicked as Hitler but worse.

Sorry, I don't know where that came from... I'm going to bed.

January 17, 2007


The Conservative Manifesto said:
j_c, in response to your concern about Romney's religion, I recommend Hugh Hewitt's The New New Bigotry. It may not speak to your concerns exactly, but an interesting read nonetheless.

Luke,

I understand your concern. After John Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) ran the ultimate flip-flopping campaign, I'm cautious of those who employ the same tactic.

However, just as I believe Clinton "flipped" his stance on abortion because he truly began to believe the other side (albeit the wrong side), so too do I believe Romney "flipped" his stance on abortion because he genuinely learned the err of his ways.

Keep in mind that Reagan himself wasn't always a "Reagan conservative" in terms of his views on some of the issues.

DeMint on Romney's stance: "...we’re not going to win this battle for life in this country unless we convince a lot of people to change their mind. And I think the very deliberate and thoughtful process that Mitt Romney went through, looking at science, considering when life really did begin, it changed his mind. And I think he has the ability to, I think, take that argument to the public debate in a way that people can relate to. But again, if someone changes their mind on something, and they’ve thought it through, that suggests they do have a mind, and they’re willing to use it."

Gov. Romney: "Now, it also shows what 13 years will do. I'm grayer. I'm a little heavier. And I hope I've grown a bit wiser as well.

"Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I'm not embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have."

January 17, 2007


Luke said:
Hmmm... Something to think about...
January 17, 2007


jovial_cynic said:
" j_c, in response to your concern about Romney's religion, I recommend Hugh Hewitt's The New New Bigotry. It may not speak to your concerns exactly, but an interesting read nonetheless."

I read the article, and it doesn't really speak to my concerns.

My concern with the LDS isn't much different than my concern with "traditional" Christians in most mainsteam denominations, as they're all interested in dominion of America. You and I have chatted a bit in the past about the ills of "christianizing" the branches of government to bring them into alignment with so-called Christian ethics. Theocracy is bad, and I don't care which religion we're talking about. I don't want a President with an Assemblies of God agenda any more than one with a Morman agenda, or a Muslim agenda, etc.

January 17, 2007


The Conservative Manifesto said:
... but I guess it doesn't really matter. After all, you won't be voting in 2008, right?

;)

Cheap shot, I know.

January 17, 2007


jovial_cynic said:
Well, I vote on issues, and if I end up feeling like the issue of religion/politics is important enough to vote against a presidential candidate, I might. I've got some time to think about it.
January 17, 2007


The Conservative Manifesto said:
Not to take another cheap shot, but that seems to be a trend of those who lean left: voting against something rather than for something.
January 18, 2007


jovial_cynic said:
That's just semantics. By voting for something, you are voting against else. And maybe it makes sense that I phrase it as "voting against," on account of little being presented that's worth a for vote.
January 18, 2007


The Conservative Manifesto said:
Semantics... perhaps. However, considering John Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) based his 2004 Presidential campaign on being against what George Bush stands for, that positioning can have consequences of its own.
January 18, 2007


jovial_cynic said:
Basing a campaign on being against something is stupid. Voting against something is something completely different. What you are describing in Kerry was the position of not having a position. Yes - we agree that such a stance is nonsense.
January 18, 2007


The Conservative Manifesto said:
I'll take what little agreement I can get.

=)

January 18, 2007


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 805636 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.92.128.223) will be logged.