The Pandering Continues
We were never under the delusion that Obama was going to be the perfect candidate. There have always been way too many Obamamaniacs who swear his poop smells like peach cobbler. Still, we had guarded optimism that the tremendous amount of faith people have instilled in him would cause him to rise to the occasion. Then this happened. Then this. Then, he voiced support for the Supreme Court's decision to overturn DC's ban on handguns.
Now, he's expressing the desire to expand Bush's faith based programs. Faith-based, of course being a euphemism for Christian. We're still glad that Hillary isn't the nominee. As Rumproast pointed out, she was beginning to look as conservative Joe Leiberman before the general election was even underway. Still, we were hoping to proudly support Obama in November. Sadly, we'll be holding our noses.
Comments
One of the key appeals of Obama to many people, myself included, was that he approached issues in a non-ideological way; he has always been a moderate in the best sense of the word, namely that he takes into consideration all perspectives on a particular issue before taking a stand.
In each of the instances you mentioned, it's clear that Obama was looking at the big picture on each issue and taking a position on the basis of what really amounts to cost-benefit analysis.
First of all, although FISA does have serious problems, it's not nearly as draconian as some have made it out to be. Obama's position reflects a view that the Fourth Amendment privacy interest has to be balanced with national security interests. I think changes do need to be made to the law, and I would certainly like to see President Obama push for such changes once he's in office.
As far as the ethanol issue goes, that's been happening since Obama arrived in the Senate in '04, as the Times article makes clear. That's a case of a Senator looking out for key constituencies in his state. It's politics, and despite what some have wanted to believe, Barack Obama is indeed a politician.
If you read his full statement on the Heller decision, it's not so much in support of the repeal of the DC gun ban as much as it is a praise of the restraint of the decision. As Obama states it, "Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that [the gun ownership] right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."
His position on faith-based programs is essentially to revert back to the policy that existed before Bush, with the exception of making more money available to religious organizations in the form of government grants so that they can perform needed services. And while there can be some difficulties in ensuring that discrimination does not take place in the implementation of these grants, on balance this seems to me to be a reflection of Obama's sincere desire to effectively address problems such as poverty, education, and public health. In other words, it's a pragmatic, not ideological stance.
Obama will be an excellent president, despite the fact that he will not always do what liberals (and I do consider myself a liberal) want him to do. He'll restore competence, integrity, and a sense of purpose to the White House, and that's certainly reason enough to hold your head high when you vote for him on November 4.
Posted by: Matthew Wilhelm | July 7, 2008 08:05 AM
still if you support faith-based programs and are pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, doesn't that speak to a compromise that may let the progressive politics win on the important things without ostracizing the losers so they wage a culture war against you? Isn't it better to change minds than stick to your (but probably not Obama's) principles of hating religion? Just saying... and the guns thing? Who cares? Maybe the NRA will settle down now and let legislation be passed limiting the access to guns in inner cities, where it matters, instead of declaiming and rising a chorus against every law passed as an attack on constitutional rights? Not to be an Obamamaniac, because I definitely am not, but these are shallow meaningless reasons to hold your nose when you vote for him.
Posted by: hmmmm | July 3, 2008 06:00 PM
So what? If a charitable group does a good job and has a religious affiliation, why shouldn't it get federal money that it would've gotten had it been secular?
I think it's going way too far to say you'll have to hold your nose to vote for Obama. He's the best candidate since JFK. I'm sorry to inform you, but Richard Dawkins probably couldn't win the American presidency.
Posted by: Scott | July 2, 2008 11:03 AM
Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/01/cnn.poll.matchup/?iref=mpstoryview
Posted by: Unreal | July 1, 2008 09:16 PM
All pandering aside, this CNN poll (link) regarding McCain & Obama in a statistical dead heat confirms it; America is officially retarded.
This thing shouldn't even be close. I guess people are THAT stupid after all.
Posted by: Unreal | July 1, 2008 09:14 PM
This is really disappointing, especially giving churches the right to fire people based on religion... discrimination of any sort should be an anathema to him and his campaign. I guess, at least, he is still sticking to a pro-gay platform.
Posted by: Marx Marvelous | July 1, 2008 12:48 PM