There's an e-mail circulating entitled "The Obama Title [sic] Wave", which asserts that most Obama followers are just caught up in the wave, and don't know what he stands for. I can't speak for the millions who have voted for him. I can speak for myself. Here's my response to the e-mail, point by point:
· He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
In my view, termination of a pregnancy is a serious and private matter, deserving careful consideration and discussion between the woman and her doctor, her sexual partner (except in cases of rape) and other counselors - family, friends, and/or professionals. In my view, the federal government has no place in this discussion. It infuriates me that valuable congressional time was spent even considering this kind of legislation.· He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
I would sincerely hope that a minor's parents would be part of the decision to continue or terminate her pregnancy. Conversations about sex, including hypothetical discussion of such a conversation, without presumption of its outcome, should be part of every parent-daughter relationship. If there was going to be legislation, it should mandate that. But imagine the outcry if the feds tried to tell people how to raise their children in that way? No, instead we ask for some bureaucratic solution. Again, a misuse of congressional time.· Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.Education is the foundation for success in careers, and I don't believe that anyone has made a convincing case that we have educated enough racial minorities such that businesses reflect the population makeup. If you don't have the graduates coming out of college, you can't hire them. · In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
I'm not familiar with the particular aspects of this legislation, but I know that Obama's background makes him much more of an expert than I am. In my experience, those with more expertise ask more questions, and question what seem like obvious answers. If he wasn't applying his expertise to question such legislation, that would be more of a red flag to me.· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
Selling drugs is lucrative, high risk business. Kind of like the business that Bear Stearns is -- or was -- in. Unlike that Wall Street firm, and like minimum wage jobs, street level drug dealing requires no formal education, just the right connections. Can we get more kids to choose minimum wage jobs instead of street dealing, by raising the minimum wage? Not clear. Would that be less expensive than incarcerating the lot of them? Don't know. But it's worth looking at. Who knows? Maybe these risk takers could get employed on Wall Street if we can keep them out of jail. · Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
Let's see. Honesty about youthful indiscretion. That's more courage than most people I know. "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." And after politicians like Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Pres. Bill Clinton? I don't have problems with this.· His religious convictions are very murky.
That's a pretty murky statement, not grounded in facts like most of the others in this list. But frankly, I haven't spent a lot of time examining the religious convictions of the candidates. I'm not electing a bishop. I'm electing a president. And religious convictions don't mean anything if they're not reflected in the person's actions. He states he's a Christian. Based on the evidence I've seen, I believe him. 'Nuf said.· He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I'm glad to hear it, as long as his security team is up to the task. It's easy to imagine someone not governed by either leader deciding to make history and blow them both up. I'd certainly want better security than we're getting for the Olympic torch. But assuming it's secure, I like the idea. Obama is charismatic, and if anyone is going to get America's point across with the likes of these, or even get them to change domestic or foreign policies, it would be him.· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
Again, I think this is an excellent idea, if the security can be arranged, especially if he can be brought in to speak, and IF it has the backing of the United Nations. There is a lot of good in Islam that is shared with Christianity and the American way -- I'm thinking in particular about charity towards those in need. But extremist views that are nurtured by Islamic states, that turn into terrorism, cannot be tolerated. I think that Obama can credibly make that statement of solidarity, accompanied by the reprimand. But I don't want him to do it on his own. For the reprimand to be anything more than saber rattling, we need to have the UN leadership in the conversation.· Opposed the Patriot Act.My recollection is that the Patriot Act gave the executive branch a lot of power without adequate oversight. Even if I did trust the current president and all of his advisors, who's to say that the next one and his or her advisors would be equally trustworthy?· First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
I'm not sure how this is a bad thing, unless it would have been better for it to be another type of bill. I don't think that any politician has a lot of control over their first success. It depends on the opposition, on the legislative calendar, etc. And if campaign finance reform is supposed to be a bad thing, I have to disagree. "Follow the money", and all that. It's way cool that Obama's raising so much from grassroots, and in my view, it oughta be that way.· Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
Are there any businesses that are free to operate without the threat of law suits? Isn't part of our health care cost problem today that doctors aren't free to operate without the threat of law suits, and have to carry expensive insurance policies? Doctors are in a life-or-death business, with the moral mandate to save lives. Gun manufacturers are also in a life-or-death business, with the presumed rationale to save lives as well. Why should they get a privilege not according to our doctors? Such a bill makes no sense to me.· Supports universal health-care.
And as we know, supporting it is not the same as accomplishing it. He is not in favor of required universal health care, which Clinton is. The current system isn't working. I'm not so sure that universal health care is the answer, either, given the long waits I've heard about in the UK and in Canada. But I'm not satisfied that Bush has made any progress on the health care cost problem, any more than Clinton did, and I want the next president to be more effective on this issue. He thinks we have a problem -- that's a good thing. But until he actually does something about it, whatever he supports is mute.· Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
I still don't get why we think that the Guantanamo detainees are not prisoners of war, and why the U.S. isn't willing to abide by the Geneva convention for prisoners of war. Is it because we aren't at war with a sovereign nation, and the detainees aren't technically prisoners of war? I don't know. But they're on our soil, and for the U.S. to have any credibility in the world, or with its own population, those prisoners need to be under some sort of rule of law. In my view, habeus corpus is representative of rule of law.· Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.To get a driver's license you need documentation that you are you (passport, birth certificate), and you need to pass the driver's exam. Those are good things. Why is this a problem?
· Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
If someone has paid into Social Security, I'm not sure I care whether they're legal or not. But, like the recent tax rebate, if they haven't paid in, why should they benefit?· Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
Hallelujah! I live in California. 'Nuf said.· Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
If participate means "pay in and receive benefit", then I agree.· Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
I'm ambivalent about raising the minimum wage. I've seen enough debates on this in my lifetime to have a healthy skepticism for both sides: a) businesses seem to survive the hikes, and b) people are still poor.· Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
Okay. What about the other 4%? And what is the record of his opposition?· Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
As am I. Look at the Islamic states. Do we want to set our country up to be Christian versions of those nations? No! We pride ourselves in our diversity, in our common values, and our religious freedoms. I remember as a kid, asking about how the Baptist church was organized, and getting the vehement reply -- the Southern Baptist Convention does not represent my church and has no authority over me -- this from someone who attended that church. I guess being around all those Baptists as a kid gave me the same strong belief in the separation of church and state.
· Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
Take a look at the Dow Jones, and tell me that anyone in their right minds wants the savings of the country to be in the stock market. Sure, it works in the long run, but we all have the option of changing the mix of investments when we need or want more stability and predictability. If we privatize, are we not asking the likes of a Bear Stearns account manager to manage our retirement savings? No way! If raising taxes is what it's going to take, then that's what it takes. We all laughed at the prices that the Europeans were paying for gas, but look at us now. We all shudder at the taxes paid by the Canadians and the Europeans, but they seem to manage just fine. Have you seen the dollar vs the euro lately?· He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
AMT is a tax that only applies to people making a lot of money. It happens to apply to me. Would I rather keep that money? Sure. But don't ask me to keep my money, while the country is in desparate need of money to fight a war and fund successful domestic programs. Don't balance the budget on the backs of fixed income retirees and others less well off than me.· He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax
Here again, let's balance the budget. Don't reduce the incoming funds when you're increasing the outgoing ones!· He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
As I recall, the Capital Gains tax was lowered not so long ago. Do we have evidence that it helped anything economically? Not in theory, but in practice? Without that evidence, I would have to agree with Obama. We need to balance the budget.· Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
What is success? Are we any safer than we were after 9/11? No one appears to be able to answer that question with facts that aren't immediately countered by other indications. The surge is costing more money. That's a fact. Is it working? I don't know. There were hearings today on the matter, but I don't trust that the view I got from the media really answered the question. The little bits that the news had time to air wouldn't provide "the preponderance of the evidence" that I would want.· He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.
Ranked by whom? And why should I care about that label? I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I find myself agreeing with Republicans who are mortified by Bush's lack of fiscal responsibility. But when it comes to votes on the Senate floor, would my record be much different from Obama's? Somehow, I doubt it. He also voted NO to make English the official language!!
As did I, when I had the opportunity to vote on that initiative here in California. It passed anyway. And what difference has it made? It was used as an excuse to stop funding some educational programs. Great. More less educated kids. Just what this country needs. Did we increase funding for programs to teach people English as a second language? Not that I've heard. Documents are still published lots of languages. When I call a customer service number, I still hear the prompts to press a number for Spanish. Sure, it would be better if we all spoke the same language, but I don't think legislation like this makes any difference at all, not unless it's backed with the money for ESL programs. And how are we going to pay for that?
It's way past my bedtime, but I thought this was important, not just for the person who passed on this e-mail, but for me, to validate my own decision to support Obama for President in 2008.
Comments are closed for this post.
