Last Tuesday night I attended a Barack Obama rally in Houston. The chances of me actually voting for Obama are slim indeed, but I wanted to check it out; plus, my eighteen year old, and newly politically-aware, son invited me.
My observations are below, with some final thoughts at the end. I don't even try to make election predictions anymore, though.
What can you make of Obamania?
I think Hillary Clinton is still a point or two ahead of him in Texas, but if I were her I'd be pretty nervous. The rally packed out the approx. 20,000 seat capacity of Houston's Toyota center, which is where the Rockets play basketball. Since my ticket was a standby ticket, I waited for about an hour and a half in a line that stretched for blocks.
And hardly anyone in the line left it, even when it looked like we weren't going to get in.
While in line, I was kind of hoping to bump into some political crazies, but I heard hardly any political speech at all. One pudgy, earnest guy was walking around passing out Vegan pamphlets, and another out-of-place character was irritating people with a Rick Noriega for Senate banner, but other than that, people were just politely talking to each other. This was not an excitable crowd. The Noriega guy tried to get us to sing "Give Peace a Chance" and that flew over like a lead balloon.
The people in the crowd were overwhelmingly African-American, but I didn't feel greatly out of place (to be fair, I didn't tell anyone that I've been voting Republican since I proudly pulled the lever for the Gipper in 1984 either). There was a definite feel of anticipation that began to buzz as we got closer to the front gate. A woman next to me was talking to herself under her breath:
"This is history in the makin'. History!
Come a long way from the streets of Mississippi."
I know I can't understand what it's like to be a minority in this country. But I could feel this woman's earnest hope. And I respected it.
We finally got in. Oddly enough, we weren't searched for weapons. They did look inside purses and bags, but if someone was packing heat in their sock, no one would know. I was pretty surprised by that, especially in light of the article that I read today. I think they should do everything they can to protect this candidate, as they should with all the candidates.
I ended up in standing room only, up in section 425. It wasn't all bad: I was near the concessions ans therefore could enjoy an insanely expensive cheeseburger and soda. A pep-rally of sorts was being attempted as I munched on my six dollar burger. Various semi-powerful women were trotted out every few minutes or so to try to get the crowd pumped up. This was my first time to hear some of the trademark Obama chants. Things like "Fired up!", "Ready to go!", "Fired up", "Ready to go!". And, of course . .
"YES WE CAN!" "YES WE CAN!" "YES WE CAN!" "YES WE CAN!".
For some reason I thought this cheer was kind of . . . I don't know, weak? It reminded me of something from Barney the Dinosaur. "Can we tie our shoes?" "YES WE CAN!" I don't mean to sound patronizing, but as a political slogan that one leaves me flat. Before Obama came out, they played this pretty nifty video that had various musicians that I'm too out of it to identify singing "Yes we can", interspersed with shots of Obama giving speeches. It was pretty inspiring.
But the crowd just wasn't that into the cheers. I was beginning to wonder if maybe Houston would be a tough crowd for Obama.
Then he came out.
And the place exploded!
Barack Obama spoke for about an hour, and the crowd hung on his every word. He was often interrupted by tremendous ovations. The man is a good speaker. He comes across thoughtful, earnest, and humble.
In short, I like the man, from what I've seen. He seems like a decent sort and I do believe that he believes that he has what this country needs.
Now, liking him personally is one thing. But when it comes to his proposals, I disagree profoundly with almost all of them. Below are some of the highlights from his speech.
- Change. The word "change" must have been said about eight hundred times. It reminded me, a lot, of Bill Clinton's "change" mantra from 1992. It's probably a good line. After Bush / Clinton / Bush, even staunch supporters of the current resident of the white house (such as myself) are ready for some change.
- He had some great lines. He's good at rhetoric. One of my favorites: "Washington is a place where good ideas go to die". Heh.
- He is very much against free trade. He was very negative on Nafta and off-shoring, and several times mentioned plans to punish companies who send jobs overseas, and reward companies who keep jobs here.
- He had a lot of pro-soldier rhetoric, but it generally was the language of defeat. He set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: if elected president, he pledged to get the troops out in 2009. In light of the vastly underreported but very encouraging news from Iraq these days, I wonder at the wisdom of that. I read a good Charles Krauthammer article (is there any other kind?) on this today.
- The things he said about ending the war in Iraq got, by far, the biggest ovations of the night. He also misrepresented McCain as saying that we would have "100 more years of warfare" in Iraq. I lived amidst the "warfare" in West Germany in the early seventies. How well I remember it: crouched in a bunker while mortars rained down death. Except that I don't, because I know the difference between an army's long-term, peaceful presence in a country and "warfare".
- He promised to fix the health insurance system. He said that every person in the United States would have a healthcare plan "at least as good as the plan that members of Congress have". He also said "if you already have insurance, I'm going to cut your premium $2,500 a year per family." People went nuts at this. But he didn't say how he would pay for it. I'm guessing with a peace-dividend (we are spending $9 billion a month in Iraq) and a tax hike on the rich.
- He stated that he believes in the free market, but then promised to raise teachers' salaries and he decried the high pay of many CEOs. Well, I'm for raising teachers salaries and I would certainly agree that some CEOs get paid too much. I think most NBA, NFL, and MLB players get paid too much too. But who will be making those decisions? Since when does the President of the United States set teachers' salaries? And does he intend on passing legislation to force boards of directors to cap salaries?
- He promised to raise the minimum wage yearly to keep pace with inflation. Which should make the teenagers who work fast-food so they can buy concert tickets and iTunes downloads pretty happy. (note: I know that there are minimum wage earners that don't fit that description).
- He is against standardized testing in schools, and he wants students learning "art, literature, and science". My kids, in the public high school, are currently taking courses in creative writing, chemistry, geometry, theater, literature. So I'm not sure what he's talking about. I'm for all those things too.
He is going to give a $4,000 tuition credit yearly to every student for college, and they will repay it by doing community service, the peace corps, and other social services. This line garnered a huge ovation.
- Rather than "melt the polar ice caps", he will invest in solar, biofuels, wind, etc. He is also going to mandate the raising of fuel-efficiency standards in cars.
- Regarding immigration: he is going to "provide a pathway to citizenship to all immigrants who are living here". He never used the term "illegal".
- He stated his desire for diplomacy rather than war, and that he will "talk with our enemies". He said he will protect America, but wants to "end the mindset that got us into war in Iraq".
- If elected, he will go before the world community and say "America's back!"
- He's going to close Gitmo, and "say no to torture". I'm against torture too.
- He said some nice things about John McCain (over boos from the crowd) and honored him for his war service, before accusing McCain of wanting "100 years of warfare". I mentioned that earlier - I thought that was unfair.
- He said absolutely nothing about abortion. For some reason, I can find some hope in that. Maybe it's not as winning a political strategy as it used to be.
He ended his speech talking about hope. This was probably the best part of the speech. And he's right; we do need to attempt great things as a country. And nothing good is easy.
But it's all in how you look at it. Are Iraq and Afghanistan disasters? Or are we just on the hard road of hope toward liberating fifty million people from tyranny and stabilizing one of the most volatile regions on earth? See the difference a little phrasing makes? I think accomplishing universal health insurance will be at least as hard (politically and strategically speaking) as defeating Al Queda. And not as important.
When he ended his speech, the song Here I am baby! Signed, sealed, delivered, I'm yours! came over the loudspeaker. Good choice. The crowd exited the arena, all smiles. For most of them it was a night of joy.
A few final thoughts (I know this has been a long post):
I like Barack Obama. His speech was humble and soaring at the same time, and it was positive. There was very little other-bashing, and no mention at all of Hillary, other than some allusions in the form of "there are those who say about me . . . " or "some have criticized me . . ."
I think he's going to win the nomination (but I am not making a prediction :-) He's just way better at this stuff than Hillary is.
He is a refreshing candidate. He might make history.
But I wonder . . . if Obama wins, he will make history in two ways. Obviously, he will be the first African-American President.
But he will also be the first unabashedly liberal candidate to be elected in living memory. Our country is ready for a change. It is tired of the divisive politics of the last two decades. It is tired of the war.
But is it ready for another run at socialized medicine, wage-controls, higher taxes, open-borders, weak/symbolic responses to terror, the appointment of activist Supreme Court judges, and possibly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq?
I wonder.
- G.K. Chesterton
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/4430.
Thanks Jen, I've fixed.
I won't be hugely surprised if Obama wins. But - again - if he does, he'll be the first truly liberal candidate, pretty much in our entire history, to do so.
I think a McCain vs. Obama contest would be darn interesting. And certainly not a forgone conclusion.
And I'd much rather see Obama win than Hillary.
Wow. I don't know much about politics or government (although the stuff interest me)
I just don't think our country is as bad as people make it. I mean, aren't we still at the top?
I kinda agreed with some stuff- but about raising salaries.. isn't that a little risky?
- He is against standardized testing in schools, and he wants students learning "art, literature, and science". My kids, in the public high school, are currently taking courses in creative writing, chemistry, geometry, theater, literature. So I'm not sure what he's talking about. I'm for all those things too.
Just a quick, nitpicky points. The standardized testing in schools is a huge distraction. Every teacher at my High School hates having to prepare kids for it, and they think that being required to teach for it takes away from valuable classroom time.
That's what I think he was talking about.
I was just listing things he said - I don't have a beef with his beef against standardized tests :-) - unless he is against all testing (I'm very pro-testing, but probably just because I always tested well), or unless he thinks standardized tests are racist or something (which I think is silly).
But I don't know his reasons behind that statement. So I'm neutral about it.
He didn't say anything about abortion probably because he doesn't want to remind people that he has the MOST anti-life voting record of anyone running. He voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in his state numerous times. The BAIP says, "Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." So basically if even after an abortion attempt the child is born and is breathing, has a beating heart, a pulsating umbilical cord, etc. they are to be treated as the actual person they are and given proper medical care. Obama is AGAINST this. He is FOR infanticide. He also completely misunderstands Roe V Wade in thinking that only a "previable" fetus can be aborted. You can read the transcript of his chilling words at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf -- His response starts on page 84.
Excellent reporting sir! Aside from the fact that I believe this man will be the next President of our country, (Edwards may be his running mate---I have believed all along Edwards was running for V.P.)I see most of his visions as good. Probably too good to be true. Perhaps.
As well, I agree totally with Mandi. Then one cannot be correct on every issue. That is a battle that will have to be fought on another day. Which brings up one of the down sides of our whole political system. So many people seem to vote based on one or two issues that are closest to them.
Then: " - He is against standardized testing in schools, and he wants students learning "art, literature, and science". My kids, in the public high school, are currently taking courses in creative writing, chemistry, geometry, theater, literature. So I'm not sure what he's talking about. I'm for all those things too. "
The thing that leaps to the forefront of my mind is what is known as the "Corridor of Shame" right here in South Carolina. Art? Literature? Shucks! These poor students barely have enough paper and pencils to go around. And in many of the schools when it rains, they get wet. Even though they are "indoors". Perhaps this is what Senator Obama, was speaking to.
This relates to the "working wage" issue as well. Someone recently told me, the CEO of Exon makes more money in an hour than the full time worker making minimum wage earns in an entire year. (or maybe it was Exon's CEO makes that much in a day) The point is the vast diferance itself. Now that is what some call the American Dream!
At any rate, thanks for the post Bill!
I've heard a few folks on the radio point out that for the secular left, having abandoned traditional Christianity (and religion in general) are subconsciously hungry for it. And Obama is filling their need, at least to a point. He is the prophet figure, the savior come to rescue them from the devil (Bush, of course) and the sad state of their lives. He's going to make everything better. He's going to "fix our souls" as his wife mentioned.
I feel a sense of inevitability. His stirring speeches and the growing hysterical support for the man are going to propel him to the nomination. Once there, I'm not sure he can be stopped. Obviously anyone who opposes him will be labeled a racist, but there is more than that.
It's funny how he talks about "uniting the country". George W. Bush said the same things in his own campaign. But we are not united, we are divided. Right-wing conservatives/libertarians like me are not going to suddenly follow Obama just because he talks about hope and change any more than left-wing liberals/socialists are going to follow George W. Bush.
I remember seeing pictures of naive liberal college kids in California driven to tears when Schwarzenegger won the state house. They really thought that he was going to destroy their state just because he has an R next to his name. People are driven to hysteria in politics today, rivaling the most exciting religious revivals. I just have to remind myself that no matter what happens, my life is my own responsibility. A Republican victory will not make all my dreams come true, and a Democrat victory will not destroy anything I have worked for.
His quotes about "art, literature, and science" allude to the fact that, in most school districts, these are the first programs to get cut whenever there is a budget crisis. I am certified to teach Science and Art in Texas, and I couldn't tell you how many times someone told me in college that I should at least get one certification that "had a future." That's just how fast they can get cut. The implication was also that I'm a guy, so I should coach. Where my wife teaches, they hired five new football coaches, and then cut off the heat to pay for them (yes, even though it's not football season). I've talked to my wife on the phone when she said her thermostat read 65 degrees. See the end of Mr. Holland's Opus to see more about this one.
As far as a test being racist, well, tests can't discriminate, or do any other human actions. But there were several studies a few decades ago that conclusively proved that there was an unintentional bias in some questions. In other words, they were asked in a way that only someone from a W.A.S.P. middle-class background would understand. I don't think anyone did it intentionally - test writers just didn't think about it very much. Most standardized tests go through a pretty rigorous process to screen out those questions now-a-days.
Thanks for the discussion everyone.
My kids are in a really, really good school district. I know not all school districts are the same.
I personally see that as more of a local/community issue than something the President of the United States can directly affect. I guess federal funding to school districts can be increased, of course.
Regarding CEO salaries: perhaps our culture is sick to believe paying someone 10 million dollars a year is OK. But - again - I'm not sure what the President can (or should) do about that. It's a great applause line, but what is there to be done? Do we set wage-controls on high salaries? (And if we do that, can we lower lawyer and athlete salaries as well? :-) - Who makes those decisions?
It is correct that many people vote on just a few issues. I actually think that most do - for me, there are two main ones: I want the person I vote for to be pro-life (and reflect that in his/her judge nominations), and I want that person to be strong in national defense.
While I certainly see the prospects of an Obama presidency, keep in mind that his current momentum is fueled by liberal Democrats who are eating up his every word. He'll need to win over some more conservative Democrats, independents and even some conservatives (or at least get them to stay home) to win. We've never elected as President someone so unabashedly liberal. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but even Clinton, with all his political skills, running against an unpopular incumbent who had his support split by a rising third party candidate, won 43% of the vote. And Clinton ran as a more centrist candidate.
I make no predictions, other than I don't think the election is a shoo-in for the Democrat (and I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't think that either).
speaking of "change" you've got to check out this youtube video.
While I certainly see the prospects of an Obama presidency, keep in mind that his current momentum is fueled by liberal Democrats who are eating up his every word. He'll need to win over some more conservative Democrats, independents and even some conservatives (or at least get them to stay home) to win.
I'm trying to stay out of this, because I know I'll get blasted, but I did want to point out that a large amount of his support is coming from independents and even disillusioned Republicans. That's why he's doing so well. In most states, he basically splits the Democratic base with Clinton, but destroys her when it comes to Independents. He has HUGE Independent appeal. Dennis Kucinich was fueled by liberal Democrats, and we see where that got him. I don't deny that that is a big part of his base, but he has real crossover appeal that he has exploited in state after state.
People see Obama as a uniter because he transcends divisive issues like party loyalty and race. The fact that he is black has not at all been a talking point of his campaign. While Clinton talks about "standing up the Republicans" like they are the enemy, Obama has talked about the importance of bipartisanship in moving forward.
He has taken the high road in his campaign, letting Clinton do the attacking and only firing back when provoked. Bush and Clinton may have ran on similar premises, but neither were strangers to the filthy side of politics.
"I'm trying to stay out of this, because I know I'll get blasted"
Andrew, this is a "no blast" zone.
We'll see the staying power of his support among the more centrist/conservative as the general approaches. I have no idea.
The one thing that I can't get past is that there isn't anything that BO has accomplished that would make me say, "Hmmm. That man can get things done."
After all, as the leader of the executive branch of government, a President has to be able to execute. What is one thing that Barack has attempted and executed well? For that matter, I'll even accept something he's attempted and executed poorly.
BTW, executing a campaign for President doesn't count. Earning votes because people dislike Hillary gets him nowhere, if he gets elected, with world leaders, domestic issues or executive-level decisions.
The one thing that I can't get past is that there isn't anything that BO has accomplished that would make me say, "Hmmm. That man can get things done."
Not that I support BO, but I don't see "not getting things done" as a bad thing :-) - if the next President and congress get nothing "done" (other than protecting America) I'll be pretty happy.
"The government which governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
The one thing that I can't get past is that there isn't anything that BO has accomplished that would make me say, "Hmmm. That man can get things done."
After all, as the leader of the executive branch of government, a President has to be able to execute. What is one thing that Barack has attempted and executed well? For that matter, I'll even accept something he's attempted and executed poorly.
There was another Illinois native of note who you could make the same argument against. He served four terms in the Illinois House and then served an embarrassing single term in the US House doing nothing of note. After losing the bid for re-election, he returned to law. He then decided to run for the Senate. He ran twice, and lost both times. Then, he decided to run for President. His name was Abraham Lincoln.
I'm not saying that Barack Obama is Abraham Lincoln, or that he would even be a good President, but the argument of experience cannot be the litmus test.
"if the next President and congress get nothing "done" (other than protecting America) I'll be pretty happy."
"but the argument of experience cannot be the litmus test."
If John McCain gets into office and does nothing, we'll all be very angry. If he does nothing to lower taxes, lower spending, enforce immigration policy, grow the economy, etc., we'll have a Democrat in office in 2008. If we're going to have less government, as TJ suggested, then we'll have to do something. The status quo is unacceptable, I think we're all agreed on that, correct?
While I agree that the measure of experience cannot be a litmus test, it is a great way to differentiate between candidates. For example, McCain has shown the ability to run an office effectively enough to get major legislation passed. While I do not agree with much of it, his name is attached to some landmark laws that had to have someone with the ability to get things done behind it. Mike Huckabee turned a state's education system around (49th to currently 8th in the nation) as well as converting his state's roadways from worst to "most improved". Once again, someone who not only advocated change, but enacted change.
Between a great orator with nothing to show for himself and a lackluster old white man with experience coming out of his ears, give me the dude who has shown proof that he knows how to walk the talk.
"His name was Abraham Lincoln."
You've left some things out such as him becoming the head of his political party at the state level and being instrumental in successfully creating the Republican party.
Let me repeat: he was instrumental in creating the REPUBLICAN PARTY. I would consider this "getting something done."
dude - no-snark zone. I apologize if I came across as snarky.
Alls I'm sayin is that Abe helped form a coalition of many different factions into one party. While he didn't do this within the confines of public office, he certainly executed a plan successfully.
A modern-day candidate who could argue success outside of public office might be a Ross Perot, or even Mitt Romney, whose main success, imho, came outside of his governorship. You saw his greater success in business and the olympics.
Barack's career up to this point in time does not measure up to Lincoln's prior to 1860, imho.
Once again, snark wasn't intended. Sorry if it came across that way.
Quaid,
You are coming off, well, not snarky, per se, but kinda intense. Politics is such a temporal thing, I'm hoping to avoid putting too many more political posts on this site. And I'll be so thankful when the current political season is finally over. It sets us all against eachother.
And, also, since you asked, I like the status quo just fine. It's not perfect, but to most people in the world, and certainly throughout history, most Americans live lives of plenty, freedom, and well-being that can hardly be imagined.
On the whole question of Lincoln and experience, you might want to check out this post of mine.
Quaid said, "The one thing that I can't get past is that there isn't anything that BO has accomplished that would make me say, "Hmmm. That man can get things done.
"After all, as the leader of the executive branch of government, a President has to be able to execute. What is one thing that Barack has attempted and executed well? For that matter, I'll even accept something he's attempted and executed poorly."
It has been pointed out very clearly by Senator Clinton that Barack has not enough experience. Perhaps he has indeed not accomplished much in the way of getting things done in the city where "ideas go to dye". Keep in mind he has not been in the Senate long enough to garner much power. If he is indeed elected President how much increase in power would this produce. Enough power to bring about the change all the canidates speak of?
Here again is yet another "rub" with our system. One is never certain what America will get when we do elect a new President. I thought Bush was gonna be a truly great President. Now---sadly---I believe history will record him as a laughing stock. Of course, that is only my opinion.
"I believe history will record him as a laughing stock. Of course, that is only my opinion. "
Why? For winning two wars and liberating 50 million people from tyranny? We now have two democracies established in the Middle East where there weren't any before (well, besides Israel). Things are still shaky. It could all fall apart. But - contrary to all the dire predictions of those who will benefit politically if Bush fails, they haven't.
You might say he had the audacity to hope that we could accomplish what was absolutely unheard of. Obama rightly talks about how difficult following through on hope is, and how we must be bold and attempt great things. Yet when it comes to what's happening in Iraq, everyone in the "loyal opposition" wants to throw in the towel. Now, after a successful surge and a vastly improved (and daily improving) security situation.
I've always believed history will be far kinder to President Bush than the current conventional wisdom. We're currently inundated in what has been called "the politics of mockery" - but history doesn't usually remember that part - it's too insubstantial (like the political cartoons in the 1860s that portrayed Lincoln as a clown or an ape.)
I like Bush. Of course, that's just my opinion too. :-)
He's going to close Gitmo, and "say no to torture". I'm against torture too.
This campaign season has been torture. I hope the next presidential campaign season doesn't start next year.
In other news, how do we get a prayer revival started?
I'm listening to the voice of truth, one of the only radio talk shows worth listening to . . . you know the one. :-)
The host read from a liberal writer and guest backed it up with anecdotal evidence from his family that liberal jews will not vote for a black candidate. That doesn't make any sense to me, but politics barely make sense in general.
Bill wrote: “Why? For winning two wars and liberating 50 million people from tyranny? We now have two democracies established in the Middle East where there weren't any before…
Ernest L. Wiggins wrote a column in my daily newspaper today from which I will quote.
“ Alice told the White Queen,’…one can’t believe impossible things.’ And the White Queen responds, ‘I dare say you haven’t had much practice.’
“This bit of Lewis Carroll nonsense is fitting because commonsense and reason get a daily pummeling in published news reports.
I’ve been reminded so often of Alice and the White Queen recently that I’m finally persuaded I’ve passed through the Looking Glass.
“Like Alice, I can’t trust my eyes or my own mind because our country is being asked to believe the impossible, that despite evidence to the contrary, nothing is wrong.
“Up is down and down is up. What’s actually big appears small, and what is small appears big…â€
Since February 1 of this year there have been twenty eight US soldiers killed in Iraq. (source: http://icasualties.org/oif/ ) Now, common sense tells me that before a war may be declared ‘won’ it must first be finished.
Surely Bill you were speaking of some other war to which I have not been privy.
As far as exchanging tyranny for a civil war chock full of terrorists (And isn’t that the war Bush proclaims to be fighting?) I believe Charles Lutwidge Dodgson would find much grist for the mill, were he alive and searching for nonsensical ideas to write about.
Democracies? I suspect they are made of cardboard. Of course you could elucidate for me the great accomplishment these “Democracies†have so far accomplished.
Slumberjack
After Saddam and the Taliban were toppled, both wars were considered "won". Wars are won when the entity you are trying to dethrone is dethroned. The big question was, could we "win the peace". Winning the peace turned out to be such a large undertaking that it became another war, no doubt about it.
Things were indeed very shaky in 2004-2007. But the change in strategy in Iraq, the Surge, has turned things around.
Is the outcome still in doubt? Yes, of course. But that's the point: it's still in doubt. We could lose. But we could (contrary to many of the defeatists on the Democratic side) also win, and chances of that improve with each passsing day. Is good progress being made? Yes. Even detractors of the war (Congressman Murtha, for instance) have agreed that the surge is working.
Regarding the Democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Belittle them if you will (and that was awfully ugly-American of you to do so :-) - just the fact that both governments are standing is a testament to the great courage of their leaders.
I'd be glad to discuss this more, but I'd ask that perhaps we could hold the sarcasm, and would you first read the Charles Krauthammer article I posted above? The link is here. Krauthammer mentions several things that the Maliki government (which hasn't hit many homeruns, no doubt) is currently doing that is good.
On a side note, putting "Democracies" in scare quotes is a slap in the face to all the Iraqis who voted that government in. I suppose their votes aren't as real as ours?
The civil war you are referring to has gone into remission. Yes, there are still IEDs, still terrorists (and they are on the run and disheartened, if the writings of their captured and dead leaders is any indication). Anbar province is cleared of Al Queda. Baghdad is returning to near-normalcy. We're still in deep waters here, but it appears our current strategy can bring success.
The real question, upon which thoughtful people can disagree, is "is it worth it?". The second question follows: "Can we afford to get out?" - in other words, what are the implications of leaving now?
These are the questions that this election will decide, for better or worse.
As a follow-on, while I was listening to Obama's inspiring talk on hope near the end of his speech (and that part was, indeed, very good) I couldn't get over the irony: we're being asked to do what others think can't be done when it comes to a vast number of domestic proposals. But when it comes to Iraq, suddenly, there's no room for hope. Even when all is not lost - not by a long shot.
Bill, it does indeed come down to the question of "is it worth it." The surge has supressed the level of violence: that's a good thing. Millions of Iraqis have better lives now than under Saddam: good thing. Whether that continues is still a gamble. Our current gambling budget is 9 billion a month. Trade off is the greater number of terrorists in the world due to our adventurism. Are we more or less safe? Hard to say. Is it worth it? I would say no.
Speading of tradeoffs: Someone, I think it was you, said that defeating Al Quaida was more important than getting universal health coverage. I would guess that choice would be more likely to come from someone who already had health insurance. Leaving aside (as you did) the possible impossibility of both projects, someone without health insurance would likely have a different answer for that particular "is it worth it."
"someone without health insurance would likely have a different answer for that particular "is it worth it."
I should not have tied the health insurance issue with the war - that was clumsy of me.
Yours is a good comment, although we disagree on whether the current effort in Iraq is worth it. And, whether we're more or less safe, we've certainly escaped another terrorist attack on our own soil since 2001. That's nothing to sneeze at (though no one mentions it anymore). Would you have believed, on 9/12/2001, that on 2/26/2008, we would have not been attacked again? I wouldn't have.
This is, by the way, the fifteenth anniversary of the first WTC bombing, in which (in a near-miracle) only six people were killed.
Back to your final point. I am not against prudent, wise, and innovative approaches to the problem of uninsured Americans. I am against socializing the whole thing.
That doesn't mean that I don't care about people who don't have health insurance. It's rough - we have a young woman in our singles group who is ravaged by infections, epilepsy, and myriad other health problems. While she has medicare and medicaid, she still has to struggle to make payments, has to work out all the (scary) arrangements, knowing that her insurance only pays for the first 30 days of a 33 day antibiotic treatment, etc. Our church has stood ready to help her.
I understand that it's hard.
Finally - that portion of my post you referred to is one I regret. I don't believe in false-dichotomies: protecting the U.S. and solving the health insurance issues in this country aren't mutually exclusive, and I should not have set them against each other.
As a follow up: I also didn't mean "more important" as much as I meant "more appropriate". I'm a conservative (although a lot of True Conservatives out there might disagree :-) - there are things that the federal government is clearly mandated to do: protect the United States is one of them. There are a million other things where the mandate is either fuzzy or non-existent.
Providing health care to every American, while a good and laudable goal, may not be the responsibility of the Government.
Believing that doesn't mean that I want people to be uninsured (and it doesn't even mean I don't want the government to see what it can do - I'm a bit fuzzy on this myself). I just don't believe a big-government, everlasting, welfare-state universal health care program is the way to go.
You've got an open italic code at the end there.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I think Obama is the likely candidate and I also think that if he is, then he will most likely be our next President. It's not a happy thought for me.