My First Political Endorsement

I am amazed at the shallown content of this endorsement. Especially coming from such prestigious publication. I could not find anything of substance to support this endorsement. Just amazing. What challenge has Obama met exactly? Why is the war in Afghanistan so important? The oil is in the Middle East, not Afghanistan. Such is the ignorance and naivity of Obama’s world view and his supporter. If we are in Iraq, we ought to make it a succesful democracy. Period. That is the seed of to sower long lasting peace in that country and maybe the region in the long run. That is the single most important foreign policy. Not Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. How eactly are you going to help the economy by raising tax on the rich? Give the money to the government so it can bail out more banks? Does the government invest in anything that create jobs? The whole premises of Obama’s policy is flawed. Catered the the left. We all love this country, we all want to help the poor. It is how we think that can be achieved separate the two parties and thus the two candidates.

Dear George,

I think you are very brave for posting this article and I want to congratulate you for sharing something so close to your heart.

Well done.

John:

Thanks for the comment. I’m not sure if you’re talking about my endorsement or those I linked to (not so much Ron Howard, but Powell and NYT).

If you’re referring to mine, thanks for the “prestigious publication” compliment!

So much has been said and written, I wasn’t going to spin my wheels by pretending I could do better, so I deliberately went shallow and personal. I could debate it all day long. I could write a book making the case for Obama-Biden if I had time. I don’t. But here I’ll address your points briefly.

“What challenge has Obama met exactly?”

Start with becoming president of Harvard Law Review and becoming a law school graduate who could have clerked for the Supreme Court and worked for any law firm in the country, and in fact went on to teach Con. law at one of the top law schools in the country. (U. Chicago is right up there in the “top tier”; it was the only law school I applied to that didn’t accept me — I didn’t bother with Harvard, but was positioned by virtue of grades and test scores to be accepted at the great majority of law schools.) Surviving law school is itself a tremendous challenge, more so coming out on top at a school like Harvard.

We’d have saved many millions in taxpayer-funded legal battles if Bush had been a student or professor of Con. law and thus not plowed ahead with numerous actions destined to be rejected by the courts.

Presidents make final decisions on all federal legislation, and having the kind of top-notch legal training and knowledge Obama has will be invaluable in that process. I bet Bush doesn’t even read what he signs, and if he did wouldn’t understand it in the way someone with legal training would. I’m serious. I know we’ve had great presidents who were not lawyers and poor ones who were, but it still is a plus.

Consider Obama’s meeting the challenge of organizing this campaign, with its superior use of technology and ability to inspire so many who are usually uninvolved — and beating the Clinton machine.

It’s been a challenge to reach the point of drawing the kind of polling numbers he has, despite the lingering racism in this country. (That’s not playing “the race card,” it’s telling it like it is.)

He met the challenge of conducting himself in the debates and campaign and media appearances in a manner that clearly displays a presidential demeanor, thoughtfulness, and intelligence that blows away not only the other ticket, but also any Republican President since Eisenhower. All in the face of lots of below-the-belt attacks.

“Why is the war in Afghanistan so important? The oil is in the Middle East, not Afghanistan. Such is the ignorance and naivity of Obama’s world view and his supporter. If we are in Iraq, we ought to make it a succesful democracy. Period. That is the seed of to sower long lasting peace in that country and maybe the region in the long run. That is the single most important foreign policy. Not Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.”

I’m glad to hear you admit what the Bush administration never has: That the war in Iraq is all about oil! If so, who cares about democracy — let’s just install and prop up a guy like Mushareff?

Personally, I think we need out of Iraq soon because: we simply cannot sustain the war effort economically and militarily; the Iraqis want us out; and our presence is more likely making things worse than better.

I don’t have a clue what more we could do to “sow democracy.” Nor do I have a clue what John McCain means by “victory.” There is no victory in an insurgency. We’ve been there, done that in Vietnam.

Funny, we’ve sure been hearing all these years how important it is to get Al Qaeda, and I agree. Of course peace in the Middle East is very important — and very problematic. I’m far from convinced our troops in Iraq are accomplishing anything towards that end. Far more would be achieved by restarting peace talks. Important things, including Israeli politics, have changed, and a new US president with Obama’s approach could actually achieve something.

“How exactly are you going to help the economy by raising tax on the rich? Give the money to the government so it can bail out more banks? Does the government invest in anything that create jobs?”

Read about the New Deal and WPA-CCC, when the government’s direct investment in job-creation built landmarks, like state parks that still are in service today.

Fiscal policy in a recession calls for deficit spending targeted to stimulate the economy, not a spending freeze, and not giving vast sums to the richest few in a nation suffering from the consequences of the highest degree of inequality in the last 50 years (maybe since the nation was founded).

Listen to Obama’s plans on national service and education and infrastucture spending. These are all, ultimately investments of taxpayer funds in ways that will create jobs. Look also at his plans for jump starting the green energy economy that will create many, many jobs. All this is government ‘investment” more economically stimulating than McCain’s “more of Bush” tax cuts. Obama also proposes targeted tax cuts to stimulate private investment that is in the whole country’s interest, such as creating jobs here, not abroad.

“The whole premises of Obama’s policy is flawed. Catered the the left. We all love this country, we all want to help the poor. It is how we think that can be achieved separate the two parties and thus the two candidates.”

I used to agree 100% and look down on Democrats for thinking they were the only ones who cared about the poor. (One reason I voted for quite a few Republicans.) I’m now convinced that at the end of the day the Republicans are very uncaring and have become the party of “me-first,” not “country first.”

How does it help the poor to campaign by repeatedly calling using the tax code to put more money in the hands of the working poor “welfare”? Many work several jobs, doing work that would probably drop you or me to our knees after a day, for pay we absolutely couldn’t live on. By the way, I understand that Reagan initiated the earned income tax credit, which is what results in tax refunds to people who owe zero in taxes.

I used to believe in “trickle down economics.” But it has been an abject failure, at least over the last eight years. By the way, none other than Alan Greenspan has radically re-examined his economic worldview (it was in yesterday’s news).

As to Obama’s policies catering to “the left,” to “liberals,” or even amounting to “socialism,” I hope the present circumstances will help the majority of Americans get over such knee-jerk labeling once and for all and learn to and look practically for policies that are most likely to work and to help all Americans, not just the privileged few. If the come from “the left,” fine. “The right” or “the middle,” fine.

I think Obama will give more consideration to good ideas from “the right” than McCain will from “the left.” I see him as a conciliator and extremely good listener interested in hearing a variety of points of view. We do not need another guy who is stubborn and just listens to a narrow circle of advisors. I think McCain shares some of Bush’s worst personality traits, and bullheadedness is one we really don’t need now.

Go George, U Da Man!

I was reading today about some republican congressperson Robin Hayes saying at a McCain rally: “liberals hate realy americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God”.

Excuse me…..I believe in God and have worked and continue to work my ass off to maintain my quagmired middle class lifestyle and also consider myself a Liberal. This polarizing just enrages me!

Congratulations George! Very gutsy! There’s no way that I’d broadcast my choice or other political preferences due to business considerations. I really respect your courage for doing this! Keep up the great work.

Chuck Krugel