By royal fiat
I have no great liking for either of the US presidential candidates. They are both far too right-wing for my tastes and I don’t see much changing post-election, regardless of who gets voted in. I think the accessories may differ, but the basic body of policies will remain the same.
What really does make me wonder, though, is this almost religious fervour regarding Barack Obama. Hundreds of thousands of people somehow believe that Obama will “change” things, although what exactly he will change remains a mystery.
Wars of aggression? But he has already promised a much greater military expenditure in Afghanistan and a permanent, though smaller, presence in Iraq to balance this. So the US will be remaining in Iraq and expanding in Afghanistan. How is this meaningful “change”?
Torture? He’s for it, having called Illinois Senator Dick Durbin’s condemnation of Guantanamo Bay “a mistake”.
Universal health care? Nope.
Energy policy? Nope. (See Cracked’s take on this. Which leads me to the question on why I have to go to a freakin’ comedy site to get some sharp insight into election politics?)
Economic reform? Which candidate at whatever level (federal, state, local, church, school, playgroup) doesn’t talk about how their reform is going to be better than the current status quo? What makes up such reforms, though, is a mystery.
Offshore drilling? Seems he likes it now.
The embargo on Cuba? Seems he likes it now.
Building up America’s international reputation again? Yes, lots of words on this, but words only.
Yet, people seem to think that he, single-handedly, is going to change the entire country. There’s no thought of who his advisors are, or might be. (If you don’t know the names, or history, of Zbigniew Brzezinski or Madeline Albright, for example, (not to mention the notorious Robert Rubin) … hell, I’ll even allow two out of three … you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.) No deep analysis of his voting record (he’s voted for every Republican-proposed defence appropriation since January 2005, fyi). No hardball questions about all the corporate money he’s taking….
The advisors thing particularly bothers me.
Unlike, for example, a Westminster-style parliament, the President has a frighteningly larger say in who he’s going to appoint to represent the country’s views overseas, domestically in various guises, and economically. Whereas, with a Prime Minister, you can also take a crack at knowing who’s going to be the Foreign Minister, Treasurer, etc., and vote accordingly, with a President it’s all a blank slate until the person is in power. And, by that time, it’s too late. (We all know that the bipartisan Selection Committees have been snoozing in their chairs lately, or filibustering, so let’s not bring that one up, m’kay?)
The people of the United States have proven themselves not to be blind to how certain unelected personalities have shaped policies, and their aftermath, for the past 8 years. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Greenspan, Wolfowitz, Powell, Gonzalez, Rice. Did any American citizen actually cast a vote for these people? Yet look at the amount of power that they wielded. (Okay, except for Rice.) Yet, there seems to be a naive belief that it will all be different with Obama because … well, beyond cult-of-personality, I haven’t figured this one out yet.
From where I sit, Americans don’t appear to want a President. They appear to want a King.
Love the new notebook look of the blog. Now for the question: What corporate money? The whole point of his campaign is that he doesn’t take corporate money so he’s not beholden to special interests. All his funds come from online donations. I’d really like to know what you’re talking about so please enlighten.
Thanks for the comment on the new look, Liane! Once I saw it, I just couldn’t resist.
Now, onto the other comment. While it’s true that Obama has said he will NOT take any money from Federal lobbyists, as someone pointed out, it ain’t as simple as that. A look at Obama contributions up till May 2008 (and Pam Martens, an ex-stockbroker turned activist with 20+ years working on Wall Street, is to be thanked for this information *), show that the following companies are among the 20 top contributors to Obama (see if the names ring any bells) … banks Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse; hedge fund Citadel Investment Group.
The top FIVE contributors to Obama are law firms which also front lobby groups: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering. In addition, three Obama aides have previously been lobbyists for a number of corporations.
That’s just one point. The other requires you have a look at his voting record, which sees him consistently vote against citizen interests and in favour of coporate interests. Class Action Fairness Act 2005; Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008; Patriot Act 2005; National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act 2005; Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act 2007. His voting on all these has been interesting, to say the least.
Additionally, he’s also voted (a) AGAINST capping bankruptcy interest rates at 30%, (b) FOR capping damages in medical malpractice suits, (c) AGAINST tougher reporting requirements for nuclear industries (staff from the company Exelon, including its executives, have funded Obama to the tune of around US$220,000+); (d) AGAINST single-payer health care; (e) despite his rhetoric, FOR NAFTA.
It’s almost trivial to also mention, after all this, that he’s also missed almost one quarter of all voting sessions since 2005.
So, based on the brief selection above of a daunting pile of intel, do I think he’ll change anything? Nah. But that’s my own personal view, based on reading I’ve done. Others’ mileage may vary, although I’d love to compare positions a year down the track … if he wins.
* Pam Martens is a woman to be lauded. She is the recipient of the Woman of Courage Award from the National Organization for Women and the Susan B. Anthony Award from its New York City Chapter. Just search on her name and read what she has to say.
Verrrry interesting, Kaz. Thanks for the comprehensive response.
I did research Pam Martens and found the Z-Net article “Obama’s Money Cartel”. Most informative, as was the reader’s response at the end that pointed out that the “cartel” invested equally in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. So - the Dems (candidate notwithstanding) have their ‘owners’, and the Reps theirs.
I’ve never believed there was much difference between these two parties anyway. If I were voting, the D’s position on Iraq would probably be the deciding factor for me, but I’d certainly not be wearing my rose-tinted glasses to the polling booth.
The O voting pattern that you referenced is - disturbing. And if no one on the other side makes an issue of it then McCain’s must be even more so.
Actually, Liane, I left out half the stuff ‘cos I didn’t want to bore you. LOL
Now, it’s interesting you bring up Iraq. Because Obama is only pulling out of Iraq so he can put more helicopters, battalions and armed drones in … Afghanistan (from a speech he gave on 14 July, 2008 : “We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, and more Predator drones in the Afghan border region.”). So, the US will move from killing Iraqis to killing Afghanis. How is that a better option?
I don’t make these points to be malicious, but merely to point out that, in this election, both candidates, to my mind, are equally bloodthirsty, manipulative and conniving, and the record (not their words, but their actual record) bears this out. And I remain stymied by the wilful blindness of many of their supporters on both sides of the fence.