The mantra for Obama is change. I admit he’s a new face and a new color, but can anyone clue me in on how, politically, he is different from the other candidates? I mean this as a serious question, and I’d appreciate serious answers. So far, Teddy Kennedy seems representative of those who flock to the Obama standard, in that they’re mesmerized by what he’s not — he’s not a Republican, he’s not Clinton, and he’s not white — but no one seems to articulate what he is. And as a voter, since I think there’s a good chance I’ll be stuck with him as my President, I’d like a strong handle on what he actually stands for.
His website, by the way, does not help. I’ve gone to his issues page and discovered a few things that indicate that he’s almost identical to every other Democrat, except in the area of Iraq, where he’s not just a fool, but a damned fool.
First off, to the extent he has a little quotation at the top of his web page, what the heck does it mean? “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I’m asking you to believe in yours.” My what? My believing in belief? My personal ability, as a Mom in Marin to change Washington? I keep thinking of Peter Pan and Tinker Bell, with that theory going along the lines of “If you believe in fairies, clap your hands.” This supports my belief that he’s a master of meaningless platitudes, a demogogue who says nothing but who, like Chance the Gardener, enables people to attach their own meanings to his banal statements.
But back to his issues page. As far as I can see, when it comes to the economy, he’s promising to expand the government, which strikes me as same old, same old Democratic stuff. He’s going to give a large rebate to those who pay the least in taxes (which means he’s going to raise taxes against everyone else). He’s going to force government preschools, something that was tried in California and that, thank goodness, failed. There aren’t a whole lot of details, but there are promises: I’ll make schools better; I’ll be a tough negotiator, I’ll sneak a national health care plan in under the guise of benefitting small businesses. And on and on. It sounds like a typical Democratic plan for more government involvement in people’s lives and finances. No change here.
On Iraq, he opens by announcing that yeah, well, the Surge worked, but it didn’t work well enough to suit Obama’s high standards (whatever the heck they are when it comes to Iraq). Obama does assure us that he knows what he’s doing in Iraq, not because he’s studied military strategy, or the political situation in Iraq, or Islamic fundamentalism, or the Middle East, but because he voted against the war. Even if I agreed with his “no” vote, which I don’t, I’d feel compelled to add that even a stopped watch is right twice a day. It doesn’t mean Obama has any understanding of the complex situation in Iraq. Also, to the extent someone is whispering in his ear, I’m not thrilled about the radical pro-Palestinian whisperer he’s chosen. Since Obama has professed that his only qualification to deal with Iraq is his “NO, NO, NO” stance it’s scarcely surprising that his entire Iraq strategy is to bring all Americans home ASAP. It didn’t work in Vietnam, when it paved the way for the Killing Fields, and I’m quite sure that, if Obama succeeds in this plan, Vietnam and Cambodia will look positively benign compared to what happens in Iraq when he whistles the troops home. Oh, and by the way, once he’s removed the iron hand, Obama assures us that he’ll use his empty velvet glove to really, seriously, pretty-please ask the Iraqis to get along with each other. I’m sure that will work. I lost heart about here and couldn’t make myself read the rest of his Iraq page. The man is a lightweight. He’ll certainly change things in Iraq, but only for the worse.
On homeland security, which marches hand in hand with Iraq, Obama makes a few obvious promises, none of which are harbingers of change: he’ll guard chemical plants and water supplies, help families unite in emergencies, and track nuclear waste. Laudable goals all and, as far as I know, they’re already part of national homeland policy. Obama makes no reference whatsoever to the reason why we might need homeland security, something that was not on the political agenda ten years ago. Apparently we’re protecting these things against chimerical beings, without form or identity. Change? For a Democrat with a head buried deeply in the sands of denial, I don’t think so.
Healthcare? He’ll nationalize it, an idea that’s old (think Hillarycare), so I’m still looking for change.
On faith, Obama assures us he has it, but I have to admit to being a bit worried about the company he keeps, given that his minister is an outspoken antisemite and black supremacist. Kind of makes you wonder about Obama’s own deeply held beliefs. This really isn’t a change issue, unless you think it’s a change to have a closet antisemite, black supremacist in the White House.
And how about the judiciary? Well, Obama doesn’t really say. That is, he has no tab for “judiciary,” so you kind of have to guess. Considering that he supports unlimited abortion rights, and considering that, whether you support abortion or not, you have to concede (if you’re honest) that it’s not a right hidden in the Constitution, one has to assume that he will advance judges who believe in creative Constitutional interpretation. As you know, I am someone who forces myself to be honest here, because I’m ambivalent about abortion. I’ve grown up believing in it, and I think there is a narrow place for it (which doesn’t mean it’s an alternative for birth control), and would hate to see it vanish entirely. I’m enough of a Constitutional purist, though, that I believe we should arrive at abortion rights (whatever they end up being) either through appropriate states’ rights action or through a national Constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court’s cheating in 1973 cheapened the Courts and the Constitution.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to go on for such a long time about Obama, but I truly don’t see any “change” in him, aside from the fact that his election, if it occurred, would change us over from a Republican to a Democratic administration, with all the accompanying ideological changes that would inevitably occur with such a shift. As far as I can see, the only differences he has from Hillary are that he’s black and she’s white; he’s male and she’s female; and he’s an idiot when it comes to Iraq, while she’s a pragmatist. Oh, and he’s quite possibly a closet black supremacist and antisemite, neither of which are labels I like to see near an American president.
So, if you can offer concrete reasons why Obama is a genuine agent for real change (as opposed to snarky comments or meaningless adulation), please use my comments section for that purpose. Otherwise, I still think Obama’s a stuffed shirt, with little to offer in any significant areas of government, except for a real chance to be profoundly, dangerously stupid when it comes to America’s security. And if you can’t offer any reasons, can you explain to me why everyone is jumping on the Obama bandwagon when he’s precisely the same as the other candidates, only with even less experience than Hillary (who at least knows how to find her way around the West Wing). God knows, I never thought I’d promote Hillary’s candidacy but, compared to the others, she looks less scary.
UPDATE: Mitt Romney offers a bit more substance when it comes to (a) acknowledging the terrorism against us and (b) having a plan.
Filed under: Barack Obama | Tagged: 17 |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
For those who think that all change is good, consider the following examples.
1) 1890s Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
2) How Hitler changed Germany
3) How the Communists changed Russia etc.
For those who think all change is bad.
1) Civil Rights and Voting Rights Bills in the 1960s.
2) Most environmental protection ( not all)- air in LA in 1960s compared to today, but w many more cars today.
3) John P. Wintergreen got elected President on a platform of LOVE ( in the Gershwin musical “Of Thee I Sing”)
The one trait that defined America for hundreds of years was optimism. Americans believed, at a gut level, that they lived in the best possible country and that it was only going to get better. Americans believed in America!
For the last 40 years, the Democrat party, with its victimhood, multi-culturalism (in which every culture is valuable and worthy except our own), pitting of American against each other based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., rejection of capitalism even as they benefit from it, and unceasing criticism of all things American, has eaten away at that confidence. We’ve become an embittered, deeply divided and deeply pessimistic nation. No wonder the rest of the world hates us. We hate ourselves.
But there is a part of us that still wants to believe in Amerca that way we once did. That’s why we loved Reagan so much. He told us it was okay to be proud to be Americans. He reminded us that America, with all its faults, was and is the greatest nation on earth.
Obama is the first left-of-center politician in a long time to tap into this desire. People want to believe that he means it when he calls on us to believe in ourselves again. No, we don’t have a clue what kind of a President he’d make. We didn’t really know how Reagan would do at his age, and we didn’t have a clue what Kennedy would do. We elected them anyway, because they gave us hope.
It is foolish to elect a President on a hope and a prayer? Of course. Do I disagree with Obama on nearly every political issue you describe? Of course. Do I think he’s qualified to be President? Of course not. But there is a part of me that wants so badly to believe in someone who believes in Americans and in America.
I can’t imagine voting for Obama. Certainly not this time and perhaps not ever. But, oh, how I want to!
This isn’t rocket science, people. “Change” means anything is better than GW Bush.
While abandoning Iraq, Obama has said he would invade Pakistan to root out Al-Queda. [www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/obama.pakistan/]
At the time of the vote to authorize force in Iraq, Obama was an Illinois state senator. He was elected to the US Senate in 2004.
It’s dangerous to *believe* in a politician, because they are skilled at saying things in a way where different people hear different things. Different people will hear what they WANT to hear. What they hear is generally not what the politician is saying.
Having said that, let me make an attempt, and only an attempt, to answer Book’s question. I’ll take an optimistic slant.
Obama is pledging, to the Democrat primary voter, that he will not be a President who engages in the bitter bipartisanship that has dominated Washington. That the time for that is over. This implies that he will reach across the aisle.
One can only wonder what Democrat primary voters are hearing. Do they really want to compromise with Republicans? Because that is what it appears Obama is promising. He is saying “I am as liberal as any among you, but I will not be partisan, and I will compromise.”
That’s the optimistic spin: He is far left but is determined to reach compromise, for whatever is “good for America”, instead of just “good for the Democrat Party”.
It’s all fluff and promise. But again being optimistic: It gives him a LOT of room to move to the center for the general election. But then, if he became President by moving toward the center, would he actually govern that way?
The pessimistic spin: It is the Republicans who will have to compromise, via complete surrender. Obama will put forward his far-left agenda, and claim everyone must compromise with him by giving completely in.
It is intriguing to watch the Democrat primary drama. I’m very interested! Though my mere hope is that come my state’s primary in March, I’ll still have a meaningful selection to make among the Republicans.
“If you believe in fairies, clap your hands.”
Perfect, Book! Suddenly, all of my conflicted ideas about what exactly the Democrat Party stands for crystallized when I read that line.
Sounds like many here feel if Obama gets the nomination, he wins the Presidency. Come on, gang, Obama against Romney or Giuliani is fluff against experience. Republicans win. Obama against McCain, that’s another story.
For me, Obama’s greatest appeal is that he would unseat Jackson, Sharpton and co. as THE black leaders. But we don’t elect a President of the Interior. He is clueless on foreign affairs, and we can’t afford an apprentice running things at this time.
I’m not sure that I agree with you, Al. I remember when the citizenry elected Jimmy Carter because they wanted “change”.
What if this race was a “hare and tortoise” type of race?
The democrats candidates having a spectacular fast start in the race, the whole Main Stream Media cheering for them, and then they sit on their laurels while no one is paying attention to the unspectacular slower runners that are the republicans candidates…
Didn’t the tortoise win in the end?
Just an idea…
Obama will change… his socks. Twice a day. He’ll change tailors. He’ll change his address if he gets elected. He’ll change the date on the calendar every morning. He’ll change his schedule.
And that’s about it.
Al, How I wish Giuliani still had a chance! But the media has done such an unrelenting & successful hatchet job on him (starting with the NYT), he’s probably not even going to survive FL. Rudy was the ONE viable candidate to beat the Dems, the media KNEW it, and began chipping-away at him months ago.** He is/was a PROVEN leader, the most fiscally conservative/responsible of ANY of them, by far — a straight-shooter with class. But Republicans have apparetnly fallen for the left’s manipulative tactics, and selected Romney’s pretty face (with the low-weight words to match) or they’ve bought the media-created appeal of John McCain, the Dems number one choice because he will be the EASIEST to beat in November.
As for Obama — I somewhat agree with DQ’s statements implying Obama, at least, expresses an element of new “hope” in a largely hopeless society. I sense a degree of “decency” in him that the other two are completely devoid of. Yet Obama’s message is basically hollow and thus, he’s hardly fit to occupy the Whitehouse.
Right now, I’m not too jazzed about ANYONE left running for the presidency, save Giuliani — and he’ll probably be toast within a few hours.
** Did anyone notice, ref the last debate, how Giuliani was asked the FEWEST questions by the moderators? He got several less than the other two leading candidates. (I counted.) I also noticed how the cameras were so ready to “catch” him when he was apparently trying tohold up his (slipping-down) glasses by using his upper-lip and nasal muscles, alone. The result was a scrunched-up face, a man looking like a total dufus & truly ridiculous! These camera-shots of him were out of the blue i.e. while someone ELSE was doing the talking, the subject of which had nothing to do with HIM at all.
Why Giuliani was not properly coached before such an important television appearance, is beyond me. To “look Presidential” EVERY SINGLE second while on that stage, was so square-one, basic.
Giuliani as our president is truly ridiculous. He’s a flat out facist. We need better people than we’ve had for 7 years. It’s all moot anyway. The damage done by the worst president ever will be our un-doing. Enjoy.
Agree about Giuliani. Great accomplishments, great policies. And he never pandered. What a crying shame.
As for Obama, here´s my suggestion for campaign song:
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind’s true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!
So, Kirk, as a man of the Left, what exactly is the problem that you have with “fascists”?
Also, please enumerate all the “damage” done by this “worst president ever” – although, please use facts rather than venting your emotions with invective. We are so curious to read what you have to say.
All these lefties crying ‘fascism’ live lives of security, safety, affluence and privilege. They’re cicadas: mere noise. Fascism is just the buzz word they spout, nothing more. They have no concept of actual fascism, actual repression, actual suffering, actual want, actual resistance, actual heroism and no idea how arid their ideas and how puerile their minds are. They are as idiotic as Cindy Sheehan making a “fast for peace” but taking vitamin supplements and having an occasional latte, or these idiots who diminish their tax withholding to protest the war, and wait for the IRS to levy their wages for the unpaid tax so they can call themselves martyrs. Fools. Lately I reread Swift and his insight hits me like a splash of cold water: the Lilliputians are among us.
Fascists, Naziis, Communists, Socialists – same thugs, different gang colors.
I have to admit, I get a (small) charge out of seeing all these people standing behind Obama waving signs that say nothing more than “change.” It’s cute, I suppose, in an unfocused, vaguely warm and fuzzy way – but “change” is hardly a program.
I’m kind of curious about what it is these people think they’d like to change. As for Obama himself, I doubt if he has any clue what he’s talking about: he’s a straight Illinois democrat machine ward-heeler,and one of the first things most honorable people would change would be the process that got him the job he currently holds.
Looks like Obama is in danger of not pandering sufficiently to AIPAC and the racist Jewish supremacist vote.
Not to worry, there’s alway Clinton and Leon Trotsky loving Rudy JewlieAnnie.
Tough break for Obama though.
Let’s see. I’ve now heard from Obama supporters who accuse me of being racist for not liking him, and who display overt antisemitism in his defense. Kind of makes you wonder about his fan base, doesn’t it?
Any guy who talks about creating Heaven on Earth should be setting off alarms. In that way, Obama sure rings my bell.
I was going to write a similar essay on Obama, but you have beaten me to it and done a better job than I would have. A great post. Perhaps the only things I would add are that his willingness to freely engage Iran and Syria is incredibly naive and his claim that he will make unapproved forays into Pakistani soil (read act of war) plays well at home, but would likely go a long way to destabilizing the already shakey Pakistani government.
Kind of makes you wonder about his fan base, doesn’t it?
He’s a Democrat. That should make your wondering take much less time, Book.
Fascism is just the buzz word they spout, nothing more.
Fascism is what they are going to bring about, Z. It is a bit more alerting than spouting off about nothing.
Hey, wasn’t Kirk that guy from Blackfive who thought winning in Iraq could benefit from having Star Trek knowledge?
I’m not kidding, there was a Cpt Kirk over at Blackfive doing just that a few months ago.
Never liked Obama at first sight.
At second sight, got more concerned about his childhood experiences and his living abroad and his stepfather who was a Muslim..
Change… change what? It’s not just change that we want. It should be clearly stated as Change for the Better.
If it’s change for the worst, how are you going to survive four years of demolition changes?
fooey on you all republican racist fools
really fooey on you
My biggest complaint with Obama is his use of ‘Change’. He promises to change this and that but has failed to describe how any of his changes will be accomplished. His $25,000-$31,000 a plate dinner with ‘Babs’ was hilarious. All those people who can afford a plate of food at that price will be the very ones he will be going after to pay more taxes. With a bigger government, where will the money come from? “If you believe in fairies, clap your hands” quote keeps popping in my head.
If Obama gets elected, it will be worse than the worst president we have evered had, Carter. He made us the laughing stock of the world, decimated our military, made our work force base drop, taxed us for more and we got less. I was glad when we got Reagan and I’ll be glad if we get McCain/Palin.
No matter what though, the next president will have to deal with the economy more than any other president has ever had to do since the great depression. Our economy cannot be blamed on any presidents, past or present, it has been the practices of us as Americans. We want better, so we get loans to get what we want, bigger homes, bigger cars/SUV’s, and anything else that we can flaunt to others. The problem gets worse when we cannot afford these luxeries and we go Bankrupt or just plain quit paying our bills. We need to start living within our means, not way above and beyond.
My 2 cents.
Those of you who complain that you don’t know how an Obama administration will change policy in America for the better have not been paying very much attention to either his platform or the economic and foreign policy events that have taken hold of this country over the past couple of decades. We are not in a position to complain about left and right in terms of patriotism vs cut and runnism or Christian vs Atheist or capitalist vs socialist or small governmenters vs tax and spenders. That was all well and good to keep us entertained on black and white lines when the budget was in a surplus and there was peace and prosperity both domestically and abroad. That worked to keep us in fun little debates when the Dow soared past the 10000 mark, our retirement funds were giving 10 percent returns and our unemployment rate was around 3 percent. However, after the last eight years of a radically right administration we are in no position to do anything but hold on to our asses and hope that we can put the pieces back together again. For those of you who fear I may go into a “liberal hippie tirade”, simply hear me out. I don’t care what party you claim membership in, what faith you believe in, or what size city or town that you live in. This administration has been very bad for America. It has been bad for the whole of America. It has been a disaster for the “latte drinking, Volvo driving ACLU lawyer” just as it has been a disaster for the “patriotic, Ford truck driving conservative John Deere salesman.” Firstly, I would like you to do what I do on a daily basis at this point. Look around you and ask yourself how the last eight years has been for you. Don’t consider your political or religious affiliation; simply consider how your savings account looks. How does your IRA look? How does your children’s college fund look? Can you go out to eat more or less now? Can you afford to purchase a new car if it becomes necessary? Are you better off today than you were in the year 2000? Do you feel like the rest of us as a whole are better off today than we were in the year 2000? I can say with resounding certainty that no, none of us are better off today. This administration took a surplus and turned it into a deficit by pushing us into a war in Iraq based on the assumption that Saddam Hussein had contacts with Al-Qaeda, yellow cake from Niger, an advanced nuclear program, and rolling chemical labs. We now know eight years later that these were bold faced lies. Anyone, especially those on the right who are interested in military history or those who have sons or daughters or brothers or sisters in the military, should know that we had Hussein contained after Operation Desert Fox in 1998 and it had gotten so bad that he had begun killing off those closest to him out of fear of a coup. We’ve now so much in the war in Iraq that, according to Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek, has said that with the over 90 billion we have spent we could have modernized our schools and given health care to every man woman and child in America. Again, I want to stress the bipartisan nature of this disaster in Iraq. This wouldn’t have been simply modernizing inner city schools and giving health care to those on welfare. This would have been enough to modernize schools of 150 out in the boonies and given health care to my grandma in Peoria, Illinois. Those of you who want to stress the importance of national security in this post-9/11 world should, instead of believing we need to send all of our kids to any desert region in the Middle East, admit the fact that we are far less safe now than we were on September 10th, 2001. There are rumors that Osama Bin Laden is in a dark and desolate cave in Tora Bora surrounded by armed supporters in a region so rough we could not hope to find him, however the more prominently believed rumors now have him located in a posh villa in Western Pakistan. Now, both of these are, of course, simply rumors. Why are they simply rumors? Because we have no fu**ing clue where the man who killed thousands of us in September 2001 is. We don’t have a clue because our CIA is in shambles, our troops are battling it out in places like Fallujah and Ramadi rather than Kabul and Kandahar, and we have squandered the confidence any small number of American supporters who may have assisted us in getting this disgusting mass murderer out of their country might have had in us. In the midst of all of this wasteful spending of our tax dollars in Iraq, our president decided to do what no man has done before and lower the taxes of the wealthy. This wasn’t done as a short term stimulus to the economic ills, either. These were long-term tax cuts passed into law. This was an economic disaster. The fact of the matter is, though, that whichever administration comes into power in January, 2009, will have a huge mess to clean up. The economy is global now, in the words of Thomas Friedman, the world as flat and we are now confined to the golden straightjacket of globalization. We have been forced to take in boatloads of cash from sovereign wealth funds, funds from the governments of countries like China, to pay for this unholy occupation of Iraq. The economic policy of this radical administration, and again I want to keep this non-partisan because no self-respecting Republican I know would consider any policy vaguely resembling any of this as feasible or right, has been to completely deregulate the banking industry to the point where they are selling mortgages as commodities in packages of 1000 dollars and then using this money to loan out to the pools of hedge funds. These hedge funds have been designed to throw so much money into non-investment grade junk bonds, such as the bank’s terrible mortgages, that, in theory, even if almost all of their shit investments fail they will still get huge returns off of those that surprisingly prosper. When none of them prosper, however, you end up with banks that are in crises on two levels. They can’t get their money from anybody in any sector of their operations and at the same time everyone is making a run at the bank to get their savings out. Then you have the Fannie and Freddie debacle. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were set up to give out absolutely horrible loans to people who could never pay them back in the hopes that maybe some of our less hopeful citizens could actually purchase a home. When these sub-prime mortgages, or what I’d prefer to call insanely nonsensical mortgages, to the surprise of no one were not being paid back and the housing bubble burst, those who had invested in these all tried to get out at once. You can begin to see the disturbingly circular pattern of disaster here. In this global world, the decline of the investment houses and national banks brought not only decline to the Dow, not only a crippling blow to our motor companies, and not only made it so that no small business can get a line of credit to stay afloat while they are waiting for their payments for work completed, but it also caused a ripple effect through all markets and industry including the Nikkei in Japan and the DAX in Germany. It is getting to the point where we will see two types of work in this country—service industry jobs like standing behind a register, and intellectual jobs like teaching or medicine. Jobs like receptionist, collections agent, systems architect, graphic designer, CAD specialist, and tax preparer are all going to countries like India because it’s simply cheaper to find college graduates to do it for 15k a year there than it is here. Now, you can either futilely attempt to revert back to 18th century protectionism while every other country in the world is sending their jobs to China and India and reaping the rewards, or you will admit that in this global economy we need to spend more on social safety nets for those who will inevitably be pushed out of their jobs due to the explosion in technology and globalization. If you don’t want to accept that the government needs to take money out of failed wars and put them into things like job training, education, social security, and short-term welfare programs, then you probably have not seen the worst of the worst with your own eyes when it comes to the widening income gaps and the speed with which global capital markets are turning the once comfortably slow world into the autobahn. If we continually divert resources from programs like head-start and underfund our schools, we will have no chance in keeping the engineering jobs in the United States. No one, unless they have a very deep faith in the goodness of mankind, will argue that our military is not absolutely necessary in maintaining the security of this country, but if we don’t start putting more money into social programs to make sure we stay competitive against those who are simply becoming more productive and technologically savvy we won’t be protecting a superpower welfare state but rather a broken, debt-ridden shell of a state with twenty percent unemployment, a collapsing infrastructure, and a capital market no one in their right minds would invest in. Now, I’m sure you’re wondering how this long rant ties into the original post about Barack Obama and whether or not we can trust him to change this country for the better. My short answer is no, we cannot trust Barack Obama to change this country for the better. My long answer, however, is that yes, we can trust that his choice in Treasury Secretary, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Interior, and Secretary of State will change this country for the better. The hard truth for those of you so concerned with whether or not one man is going to change the course of this country is that the president has the power to veto and the power to influence. The people who chooses to surround himself with will always be the cream of the crop, the question is whether or not that cream will rely on failed policies of the past that have no bearing on a world where the enemy is not a monolith of state power but a Diaspora of multinational hardened militants and up and coming young revolutionaries or a world where the economy is increasingly locked into a global tug-of-war where anyone can invest anywhere at any time day or night and can move factories and jobs to anywhere in the world. You will not be voting this November for a heroic leader, what you will be voting for is someone who can use what will be probably the most homogenized house in memory. The Senate and Congress will both not only be controlled by the Democratic Party, they will both be very, very heavily Democratic. Your choice is either a president who will work with that party or a president who will have his hands completely tied in a time of complete economic and domestic turmoil. It is your choice, but you know that I’m speaking the hard truth to you.
I really don’t know who to vote for but all i know is that both candidates won’t do much for this country. You must know that they’re other parties and the best chance of me going with them is more than 90%. I’m a latina so i worry not just for america but for other relations with other countries. i hope people make a good decision because i really want change in this country!
Iowa Student,
So you believe that the economic mess is the current administration’s fault? Interesting. May I suggest some history classes?
In 1995 Clinton made some “minor” changes to Community Reinvestment Act. These “minor” changes put into place the policies which forced lenders to beginning lending to “low income” individuals and families.
Let’s take a look at an article in the NY Times dated September 30, 1999. The articles was written by one Steven A. Holmes. Let me just summarise what it says.
Fannie and Freddie eased their credit standards so that low income people could afford homes. They began easing their standards because the Clinton Admin. was pressuring them. The article goes on to state that this poses an increase risk for Fannie and in the event of an economic downturn may cause them to be rescued by the government. Keep in mind this article was written in 1999.
Jump forward to 2003 (2 years after the GWB term begins). We can see on YouTube numerous videos of the republicans stating the risks with Fannie and Freddie. We can also see the democrats blasting them and shooting down any possible oversight of Fannie and Freddie.
I wonder why that is? Oh yes, it’s because so many of them take hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fannie and Freddie. Well, did anyway, until they went under. That’s going to cost them when it comes time to raise support.
Fast forward again to 2005. You can find even more videos with the Republicans stating that something must be done about Fannie and Freddie,”NOW.” Can you guess what the outcome was?
Bottom line is that the current economic problems are not because of GWB and his administration. Feel free to argue with me and call me names, but the facts are the facts and we can’t change them.
There’s your “HARD TRUTH.”
Am I able to generate results right away or will it take a bit to show up?
What’s Going down i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve discovered It absolutely useful and it has aided me out loads. I hope to contribute & aid different users like its aided me. Good job. you can easily how to get more followers on twitter, Myspace fans/likes along with Youtube . com sights in addition to remarks.
twitter for business about twitter to grow your admirers rapidly.
One way to buying twitter followers should be to have celebrities coordinator any article in your case.