On December 23rd 2007, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee for President in 2008. Their justification was "both took a fresh approach".
That's the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard for justifying an endorsement. A fresh approach to the same old way of doing business? That's not what the American people want. They want CHANGE and that is very different than a "fresh approach".
All the candidates, both Democrat and Republican, bring a "fresh approach" to the table. Unfortunately, that "fresh approach" is just a different way of handling business as usual in Washington.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to end the war and bring the troops home. That is a different approach than George W. Bush has taken, but both also want to bring the troops home "over time" in a phased pull-out taking, in Obama's case, 16 months. A real fresh approach would be to pull them all out as quickly as we put them in. Make the Iraqis rise to the challenge or let them splinter into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd fiefdoms: it doesn't matter.
Thanks to Mr. Bush's ill-advised invasion and incredibly poor handling of the "peace", we've lost any leverage we ever had over the Iraqi region. Our continued presence just inflames anti-American sentiment. Not to mention the billions and billions of dollars we're pouring down the drain over there.
Other than that, Obama has his own version of Universal Health Care, his own reworded version of "soak the rich-help the middle class". In fact, reading through his own list of positions on his own website, Obama offers little but rhetoric, rewarmed Big Government initiatives, and standard feel-good, 2 chickens in every pot (with the Government paying for the chickens while the rich pay for the pot).
Making Work Pay tax credit: that sounds positive. Real-world value to a taxpayer? Virtually nothing.
Saving 2 Billion dollars in tax preparer fees: that sounds good until you realize that accountants and middle class tax preparers for H&R Block and the like don't have jobs anymore. And we have to pay their unemployment insurance.
Taxes? Only more class warfare: "The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans". Of course Obama neglects to mention that the top 5% of taxpayers in this country pay 90% of the income tax. 40% of Americans pay no income tax. The remaining 55% pay 10% of the taxes.
The only fresh approach Barack Obama takes is in how he sells the snake oil. Status quo; business as usual.
Now, according to the Dallas Morning News, the Republicans long for the day when a Governor/Musician of the back-water state of Arkansas sits in the White House again.
This time he's is a conservative Christian, which the DMN made considerable apologies for in their endorsement article, and I guess the DMN feels that the only way for a Republican to be elected is for him to be a conservative Christian......definitely not from a Christian Cult like say, the Mormons.
At least Huckabee claims to be anti-illegal immigration and lists a long series of actions he would take to tackle illegal immigration. Obama, for no good reason, is completely pro-illegal immigrants, pro-amnesty program, and apparently against Black Americans who are hurt the most by the influx of illegals.
Huckabee is certainly not offering a fresh approach on Iraq. Reading his published position, you may as well be reading a brief offered by George W. Bush. Iraq and terrorism are inextricably entwined and we must WIN (again?) in Iraq.
Huckabee's position on Healthcare is just political doublespeak: focus on preventative healthcare. At least he doesn't support Universal Healthcare like Obama.
He talks a lot about religion and makes the accurate constitutional argument that while the state can not SUPPORT religion, neither can it REPRESS it.
But in the end, both Obama and Huckabee are traditional politicians. There will be no "fresh approach", just different paths and different judicial appointments. There will be no fundamental difference in the general path America is walking and the declining of America will continue.
Personally, I'd like to see a shot at REAL CHANGE. Policies so 180 degree different from the status quo which has led to America's continuing decline. that the entire world would sit up and says Wow ! I'd like to see America wake up to a REAL New Day.
Only one candidate from either party offers that chance and that's Ron Paul. Come on, America, the Executive Branch is one of three. There are checks and balances. It's not like a Paul Presidency could destroy the country in four years.
On the other hand, consider the possibilities of turning the clock back to the America the Founders actually envisioned. Consider smaller government, no more foreign police actions, no more deficit. no more IRS......
Ron Paul raised over $20 million dollars in the 4th quarter to Mike Huckabee's $5 million: doesn't that show Paul's electability? $20 million dollars while the mainstream press does everything it can to show Ron Paul in a bad light.....or not at all.
You are right, Dallas Morning News, America does want change, but they want SIGNIFICANT, REAL, YOU CAN'T MISS IT change. They don't want a "fresh approach": they want a NEW approach.
You blew a perfect opportunity to express that in your endorsement but you're so out of touch with real America that someone just phoned in the cynical endorsements and went back to bed.
You should have endorsed Ron Paul. If your media friends made fun of you, you could have fallen back on the fact that Dr. Paul is a Texan and you felt obligated to support him. You'd still get invited to the media dinners and such.
Instead you copped out, took the easy approach, abandoned your usual favorite, Hillary Clinton, and without saying it directly, supported Obama because he's black, but doesn't flaunt it. How Hip of you.
In other words, Dallas Morning News, you played it safe, endorsed the status quo, and called it a "Fresh Approach". It's about as fresh as day-old flowers from a funeral.
Dr. Paul is not a "fringe candidate". He has a lot more support then the press reports. He stands for REAL change. I don't agree with all his positions, but like millions of Americans, I'm sick and tired of the Status Quo. I'm sick of the choreographed campaigns, the phony emotional up's and down's, the so-called suspense, and the inevitable conclusion. Let's shake it up this time with some REAL change. Let's put Ron Paul in the White House and see what happens. It won't be boring and it won't be Status Quo.
Technorati Tags:barack obama, black, christian, dallas morning news, endorsement, mike huckabee, ron paul, status quo
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
del.icio.us Tags:barack obama, black, christian, dallas morning news, endorsement, mike huckabee, ron paul, status quo
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator
2 comments:
Good analysis! So many people seem to have bought in to the fiction that the campaign promises of a presidential candidate will somehow become law if he is elected. For example, if Ron Paul is elected the government will go bankrupt because there'll be no more IRS to collect taxes; and so on, and on.
So special thanks for pointing out that there will still be three branches of government in place and plenty of opportunity for robust opposition to his agenda if Ron Paul were elected President. On the other hand, I'm not so sure in the case of most of the others running!
You nailed it, tarheel. In the case of the other candidates, there is very little difference between their positions and the other branches of government. We'll either shift a little to the right or shift a little to the left, but in the end, goverment will bet bigger and nothing will really change.
Post a Comment