no worries folks. obama’s still a liberal
by Diego Leiva
Published: July 8, 2008
Critics have recently hammered Obama over his alleged betrayal of core liberal values. Though Obama did applaud the recent Supreme Court ruling on D.C.’s gun control laws, voted for the FISA bill that gives immunity to telecommunication companies that cooperated with Bush’s wire-tapping program and spoke in favor of the death penalty for child rapists, I say to the Left - don’t worry, Obama’s still your man.
His approval of the Court ruling on the D.C. gun ban is hardly anything to get upset about. Yes, the Court struck down the ban on private ownership of guns, but it also went out of its way to make sure that all other regulations governing gun ownership remained intact. I quote:
“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
If you have the time and patience to read the 157-page ruling you will find even more assurances that outside of the District of Columbia, gun control is as thoroughly entrenched in our legislation as ever - even more so. The court played a classic game of good cop/bad cop - extolling the virtues of gun control while slapping D.C. on the wrist for getting a little carried away.
And as far as his vote on the FISA bill is concerned, I’ll remind you that a vote for a wire-tapping bill does not a conservative make. Obama himself has apologized for his stance every step of the way, pointing out to voters that he’s only truly in favor of one section of the new bill, the section that states that the FISA courts’ authority supersedes that of any other governing body, legislative or executive. In short, Obama is voting for a strong judicial branch that can poke its nose into affairs of state. Earl Warren would be proud.
In Obama’s defense I quote:
“I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power.”
I don’t see a reason for controversy. Obama is a politician and politicians must compromise - thus his vote. However, Obama’s also a liberal and liberals must attack Bush - thus the “abuse” jab. Obama’s statement clearly complies with both maxims - give him a break, he’s leading the party not leaving it.
Finally we’ve arrived at Obama’s most harmless endorsement of all: Obama’s for sending child rapists to the electric chair. However, before you tear up your “Change We Can Believe In” sign, remember, Obama is for the death penalty on a death penalty issue that has been determined unconstitutional. In other words, it would take an overturning of a Supreme Court ruling for any child rapists to end up on death row. In other words, it doesn’t matter what he says about the death penalty and child rapists.
This is not a reason to turn on your candidate, it’s a reason to shout “hooray” that he just may have the talent to dupe the death-penalty-supporting independents into voting Democrat! It’s brilliant. It’s like coming out in favor of Voldemort to win the Slytherin vote. There’s really no downside; niether the death penalty for child rapist nor Voldermort actually exists. Clearly Obama faced a situation wherein he had very little to lose and a lot to gain, and made the right choice.
So don’t let his apparent shifting get you down. In Obama’s own words, “I am someone who is no doubt progressive.” A true statement indeed. If elected, he promises to nationalize our health care, pull out of Iraq in 16 months and install a slew of market-crashing regulations on the financial industry. What more can a liberal ask for?
Well… an elected president, I suppose.
And fortunately, Obama has proven himself capable of seducing the center with illusions of conservative ideology while taking no concrete conservative positions. Obama carries with him all the promise of the Clinton glory years minus the sham marriage. It’s definitely a winning strategy. Because whoever wins the moderate-independent vote wins the election. And I have to admit, If I were a moderate, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 8th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I take exception to the “market-crashing” regulations jab. Our economy is tanking, the housing market is in shambles and the dollar’s worth two quarters. All under a Republican marketeer. Whose really the “crasher” sir?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
lol, Obama may be trying to move towards the center, but point blank, McCain is and has been in the center!! Moderates make up most of the population and they r voting McCain, my friends. Conservatives, moderates, reagan democrats, hillary supporters are all voting mccain! This will not be an easy sweep, but boy, if i were obama, id get ready for one heck of an election…you liberals think we conservatives dont like mccain? think again…im VERY conservative and im putting every inch of my support behind mccain. Let the competition begin. Alas.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Star,
Do not interpret my next statement as an endorsement of Bush’s fiscal policy. I hardly consider a 50% increase in the Federal government a sign of a conservative government.
However, that the President single handedly caused the economic downturn is absurd. Mickey Mouse could sit in the Oval Office and the nation would still have to deal with the business cycle. Downturns come roughly once a decade they last between two to four years on average and I have yet to see evidence that either party’s control of the Presidency can earn us a Get-Out-Of-Recession-Free card.
Speaking of recessions, we are NOT in one! The economy continues to grow at about a 1.5% clip. Not impressive, but also not a recession. Growth must be NEGATIVE for at least TWO quarters before we can call it a recession. Give the recession mongering a break until we are actually in one.
The housing market is in shambles, and you would like to pretend that George W. was out hawking mortgages to unsuspecting buyers in an attempt to bilk Americans. Are you kidding me? The housing market is tanking because millions of Americans lied about their income to buy a bigger house than they could afford and then dozens of banks collectively forgot that 15% to 35% appreciation rates are not sustainable in the long run. Any deceit that occurred was on the part of the loan officer not the banking institution, but I am certain that shady loan officers represent only a small fraction of the problem. The housing bubble, in general, was caused by fools from two different camps who entered into a transaction that exploded on both of them. Bush has nothing to do with it.
Finally the dollar, the exchange rate of the dollar is contingent on trillions of transactions. The practice of isolating the cause of a market trend to one event is an invention of the media as they attempt to convince the viewer and reader that they alone can decipher the meaning of ups and downs. When the dow loses 5% in one day and the dude at MSNBC says, “The dow shed 5% of its value on news the GM will lay off 50,000 workers at it’s North American plants over the next 5 years,” it is not the result of MSNBC’s financial presience, it is a marketing scheme. MSNBC needs you to tune in, they want to convince you that they know what’s happening in the world - but they don’t,not anymore than you or I. Likewise claiming that Bush caused the collapse of the dollar is equally absurd, as if trillions of other transactions were held in check by the unilateral decision of our Chief Executive.
Star, I’ve really enjoyed our discussion. Let’s do it again sometime.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Obama’s not a liberal he’s a socialists.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Star, where you at?