Check out the editorial that was written by Jim Leach and published in this morning's Omaha World Herald. To join other Iowa Republicans for Obama, click here.
Obama is best to aid Midlands interestsBY JAMES LEACHOmaha World-Herald Editorial Friday, September, 12, 2008The writer represented an Iowa district in the U.S. House of Representatives for 30 years and formerly chaired the House Banking an d Financial Services Committee. He is a visiting professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton (N.J.) UniversityThe conventions are over. Both political parties have nominated individuals with compelling life stories. Both understand that something is out of kilter in Washington and that America’s standing in the world has diminished politically and economically over the last decade. Each is competing for the mantle of change.As one who served 30 years as a Republican in Congress and, prior to that, 5 years in the Executive branch, principally as a Foreign Service Officer, I have for the first time decided to endorse a Democratic candidate for President. I have the deepest respect for the principles and heritage of the Republican Party. But the question for many traditional Republicans is whether today’s party resembles that of our parents, of the views of leaders like Robert Taft or Dwight Eisenhower, of Barry Goldwater or Nelson Rockefeller, let alone of the progressive tradition of our great-great grandparents, the abolitionists and suffragettes.The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years toward regulating values. The party of military responsibility has taken us to war with a country that did not attack us. The party historically anchored in fiscal restraint has nearly doubled the national debt, squandering our precious resources in an undisciplined and unprecedented effort to finance a war with tax cuts.In 25 years in Congress, John McCain has demonstrated what he validly describes as a maverick personality, but on the key issues of the day – the war in Iraq, tax accommodation for the big and powerful, social policy – both his policies and personal approach to decision-making represent unflinching continuity with the current Administration....Click here to read more...
Obama is best to aid Midlands interests
BY JAMES LEACH
Omaha World-Herald Editorial Friday, September, 12, 2008
The writer represented an Iowa district in the U.S. House of Representatives for 30 years and formerly chaired the House Banking an d Financial Services Committee. He is a visiting professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton (N.J.) University
The conventions are over. Both political parties have nominated individuals with compelling life stories. Both understand that something is out of kilter in Washington and that America’s standing in the world has diminished politically and economically over the last decade. Each is competing for the mantle of change.
As one who served 30 years as a Republican in Congress and, prior to that, 5 years in the Executive branch, principally as a Foreign Service Officer, I have for the first time decided to endorse a Democratic candidate for President.
I have the deepest respect for the principles and heritage of the Republican Party. But the question for many traditional Republicans is whether today’s party resembles that of our parents, of the views of leaders like Robert Taft or Dwight Eisenhower, of Barry Goldwater or Nelson Rockefeller, let alone of the progressive tradition of our great-great grandparents, the abolitionists and suffragettes.
The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years toward regulating values. The party of military responsibility has taken us to war with a country that did not attack us. The party historically anchored in fiscal restraint has nearly doubled the national debt, squandering our precious resources in an undisciplined and unprecedented effort to finance a war with tax cuts.
In 25 years in Congress, John McCain has demonstrated what he validly describes as a maverick personality, but on the key issues of the day – the war in Iraq, tax accommodation for the big and powerful, social policy – both his policies and personal approach to decision-making represent unflinching continuity with the current Administration.
While Senator Obama opposed initiation of the war with Iraq, a judgment now concurred with by a majority of Americans, he is neither a radical nor a maverick. He has an instinct for team leadership, a commitment to respect Constitutional processes and pull the country together in a bi-partisan fashion. It is his issues that are change oriented: ending the war, advancing a more traditional American approach to world leadership involving a preference to lead less unilaterally and more in concert with allies, proposing non-ideological judicial nominations, and reasserting a more balanced, middle class, mid-American approach to fiscal policy.The risks with the alternative, the continuation of a neo-conservative designed foreign policy, are not just the prospect of a long-term occupation of Iraq which would be costly both in lives and purse, but the real possibility that America could without much forethought become enmeshed in an avoidable, decades-long, cultural and potentially real war with the entire Muslim world.Fiscal distinctions also demand attention. It is true that the Obama platform envisions increased revenue to pay for new health care initiatives, raising taxes on the top 5 percent of income earners to Clinton era levels, and, for instance, and accepting a $7 million family exclusion on estate taxes without eliminating the inheritance tax on the top three-tenths of one percent of estates as advocated by Senator McCain. But as a percentage of gross domestic product – less than 19 percent -- the panoply of federal taxes proposed by the Obama campaign would be lower than during the Reagan years. Sen. McCain has argued that the oil industry deserves another $4 billion tax cut while Sen. Obama believes that record profitability in the industry belies the need for new tax incentives. Instead, unlike Senator McCain, he would maintain support for ethanol and bio-diesel programs and advance incentives for alternative wind energy initiatives. Midwestern states like Nebraska and Iowa not only have a multi-billion dollar stake in corn and soybean production but in wind from the Rockies, which uniquely collects in the region.The Obama approach represents a commitment to renewable alternatives, to calling on job-creating American ingenuity. What matters in this tax differentiation are the implications both for carbon-driven global warming and for increasing dependence on the Middle East if our oil reserves precipitously decline with a short-term drilling mentality. At the Republican convention a distinguished Democratic Senator, Joe Lieberman, presented a defense of today’s foreign policy approaches. It is to be respected.But for those who aspire to change, and this includes many Republicans, I would submit that the case for new energy, new ideas, a new generation of leadership at home and abroad is compelling.
While Senator Obama opposed initiation of the war with Iraq, a judgment now concurred with by a majority of Americans, he is neither a radical nor a maverick. He has an instinct for team leadership, a commitment to respect Constitutional processes and pull the country together in a bi-partisan fashion.
It is his issues that are change oriented: ending the war, advancing a more traditional American approach to world leadership involving a preference to lead less unilaterally and more in concert with allies, proposing non-ideological judicial nominations, and reasserting a more balanced, middle class, mid-American approach to fiscal policy.
The risks with the alternative, the continuation of a neo-conservative designed foreign policy, are not just the prospect of a long-term occupation of Iraq which would be costly both in lives and purse, but the real possibility that America could without much forethought become enmeshed in an avoidable, decades-long, cultural and potentially real war with the entire Muslim world.
Fiscal distinctions also demand attention. It is true that the Obama platform envisions increased revenue to pay for new health care initiatives, raising taxes on the top 5 percent of income earners to Clinton era levels, and, for instance, and accepting a $7 million family exclusion on estate taxes without eliminating the inheritance tax on the top three-tenths of one percent of estates as advocated by Senator McCain.
But as a percentage of gross domestic product – less than 19 percent -- the panoply of federal taxes proposed by the Obama campaign would be lower than during the Reagan years.
Sen. McCain has argued that the oil industry deserves another $4 billion tax cut while Sen. Obama believes that record profitability in the industry belies the need for new tax incentives. Instead, unlike Senator McCain, he would maintain support for ethanol and bio-diesel programs and advance incentives for alternative wind energy initiatives.
Midwestern states like Nebraska and Iowa not only have a multi-billion dollar stake in corn and soybean production but in wind from the Rockies, which uniquely collects in the region.
The Obama approach represents a commitment to renewable alternatives, to calling on job-creating American ingenuity. What matters in this tax differentiation are the implications both for carbon-driven global warming and for increasing dependence on the Middle East if our oil reserves precipitously decline with a short-term drilling mentality.
At the Republican convention a distinguished Democratic Senator, Joe Lieberman, presented a defense of today’s foreign policy approaches. It is to be respected.
But for those who aspire to change, and this includes many Republicans, I would submit that the case for new energy, new ideas, a new generation of leadership at home and abroad is compelling.
Comments are closed for this post.
