Monday, January 14, 2008

Obama: Iraq & Health Care

From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: Obama: Iraq & Health Care
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:55:33 -0800

If I was voting on either side, my preferences would go like this:

Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, etc.

McCain, any of those other guys who have no shot when compared to the rest of this side of the field, Huckabee (despite his evangelical background, he seems more genuine than the remainder of this group), Romney (just seems too slimy and disingenuous -- it's like having Pat Riley or Alex Rodriguez as President), Giuliani (how can he run on a platform of nothing but "I was mayor of NYC on 9/11 -- even though I didn't buy decent radios for the firefighters when I had the chance -- and the city didn't burn itself to the ground so I think I'm the right guy to run the most powerful nation on the planet"?

President Hillary just means the Dem Washington insiders and lobbyists are free to return to K Street. Obama, Kucinich and Edwards would be completely different and probably better alternatives if people really want change in Washington. I'm fairly sure they would hire people that would be good fits for the Cabinet positions.

> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:47:54 -0800
> From: Young H. Kim
> Subject: Re: Obama: Iraq & Health Care
> I have been to Obama's site long before this exchange, but appreciate the link
> anyway. Here's one I found that has links to all the candidates' websites:
> I was thinking on the bus ride to work today (if anything, our discussion is
> clarifying my positions and whom I should support) and realized that I will go for
> Obama at the caucus here--mainly for one reason. I don't like to sum up my choice
> by a litmus test, but he did not vote for the war on Iraq. I know the Clinton camp
> is saying, "He voted against the war but voted for its funding". Well, he's
> sensible enough to know that he lost the vote, but he's not gonna leave the troops
> hanging with no money for resources. It would be nonsensical, if not just stupid,
> to keep voting against funding when the war is on. Whether his votes reflect
> pre-calculation on his part for political gain or not, I give him credit for voting
> against the war and having the sense not to vote against funding it, even if it was
> for fear of political fallout. To reiterate, I credit him for making the right
> decision in the first place, and having the sense and wisdom to give the support
> that the military needs. I would trust him to get us out without jeopardizing our
> troops and maintaining some semblance of peace in Iraq.
> On health care, none of the Rep candidates' proposals require health coverage for
> all Americans. So where should the compromise be between universal health care and
> not. That seems impossible to reconcile. If Reps support covering some but not
> all, where is the reform? Just cover more than we do now, is that the compromise?
> Reps may be able to argue that they are for change, but not true reform. If Reps
> consider universal health care to be "left-leaning" than how can a compromise happen
> other than getting the Dems and a super majority of the country to give up on
> mandatory coverage for all? That is not for the good of the nation.
> I agree with shifting some of the insurance burden from small business employers,
> but not all employers. Health education and prevention is important as well, so
> that people are empowered to improve their health and to lower costs. I believe
> that the independent voters favor a universal, mandatory system; of course, the
> Right sees this as far Left, but the Right is not in tune with the mainstream on
> this issue. The Right is more concerned with preserving the current, unfair system
> that favors the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care corporations
> that run hospitals and clinics, people in the lucrative sectors of the health care
> profession and major corporations--the people who don't need or want universal
> health care. Always frustrating that the Dems are unable to drive this point home.
> --- Brian Menard wrote:
> > YHK: Go to<> for details. Prior
> > to laying out his actual positions on issues, he spoke about coming together as
> > one nation, moving past party, addressing our nations problems together instead of
> > tanking each others efforts and ending up with squat. I liked all that. I think
> > his first book (the one he actually wrote, instead of the second one ghost-written
> > for a la "Profiles in Courage") was a great book about an amazing individual. I
> > have great respect for him, and think we could do far worse than have a sincere,
> > smart, compassionate, thinking person in the White House. But his policy
> > proposals are rehashes of old left-leaning ideas, not new ideas welcoming
> > participation by all. He knows full well that Republicans won't touch his health
> > plan, his plans for withdrawal from Iraq, etc. So the message of rhetoric
> > combined with proposals comes across to folks like me - who were interested in the
> > prospect of working across party lines with him - as "Let's move beyond partisan
> > fights and work together to solve our problems: Republicans, if you get a running
> > start you can jump waaaaaaay across over here and join us in our effort without
> > our yielding any ground at all." That pig don't fly.

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Young H. Kim
> > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:15 PM
> > Subject: Obama
> >
> > BRM, could you give us some specifics on why/how you concluded that Obama is not
> > close to your views?
> >
> > I wonder if Obama can capture sort of a JFK-esque sea change and actually make
> > it
> > all the way. I do believe that his weakness is lack of experience as an
> > executive
> > and in Washington politics. Hillary may trump him on this. He needs to drive
> > home
> > why he is the one who's ready go as president on Day One. I don't think he's
> > communicated his expertise and knowledge on foreign affairs very convincingly.
> > I
> > think the first critical decisions a president makes are who he chooses to be in
> > his
> > cabinet, but we're too early for that. The lack of experience for any new
> > president
> > can be mitigated by the experts with whom he surrounds himself.
> >
> > I do like his theme of "One America" as opposed to Red or Blue states. Am I
> > correct
> > to recall that he said in some speech that we are "purple" states? That may
> > have
> > been another pundit's comment that I'm recalling.
> >
> > I don't see him as a radically Left Democrat, so I wonder if he'd able to make
> > the
> > drastic reforms such as universal health care and immigration come to fruition.
> > I
> > haven't yet assessed his other domestic and economic positions.
> >
> > --- Brian Menard wrote:
> >
> > > Brian A:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the great explication of your stands. There's actually much with
> > which
> > > I can agree there, even if we might squabble a bit over some of the details.
> > > Indeed, what's broken is not at all easy to fix, and both sides share
> > culpability
> > > for their various contributions. Just curious, as an economic populist, does
> > > Huckabee resonate with you, or does the religion thing override potential
> > economic
> > > affinity. FDT stickers remain on my vehicles, but given his performance to
> > date
> > > I've had to give much time to thinking of backup options. Huckabee had been
> > my
> > > #2, but I recently had an epiphany about how I assessed the field. (And his
> > > alleged us-vs-them comments last week about it being the evangelicals' turn to
> > run
> > > the GOP, if true, will place him further down on my list.) Sixteen months ago
> > I
> > > started a four-month investigation into Obama to see if he might be the right
> > guy
> > > to bring the nation together. As described in previous comments, I decided,
> > once
> > > he started filling in details behind his rhetoric, that he is not the guy.
> > But in
> > > assessing GOP options, I analyzed candidates with a different screen of
> > > priorities, namely, who is closest to what I want. Lately - in part due to
> > our
> > > exchange here, so thanks guys - I appreciate acutely the need to apply the
> > same
> > > test to candidates of both sides to find someone willing to do more than speak
> > > about working together despite having strong views on both (or all) sides;
> > and, if
> > > it was important for me to find a Democratic candidate willing to work with
> > the
> > > other side instead of convert the other side, so it should be with my GOP
> > search.
> > > In 2000, I voted for John McCain in the Virginia primary. In the years since,
> > I
> > > have called him an "opportunist" and other unkind things, swearing I would
> > never
> > > support him in another nomination battle. But looking at the entire field, he
> > > more than anyone seems to me to have a record of really being willing to work
> > with
> > > both sides to do things that need to be done. I'm not yet ready to say I'm
> > > backing him, but going that next step is a whole lot closer than the distance
> > he's
> > > traveled in my esteem in the last few weeks. Perhaps, though, only a third
> > party
> > > will be able to do this (which means that it probably won't get done).
> > >
> > > As for defeat, I do think we are susceptible to invasion, though not by a
> > > uniform-wearing army. (BTW, I think you are the only participant here who has
> > > served in uniform, which I hadn't forgotten - I don't think I've made any
> > comments
> > > that might seem to have overlooked your service, but if I left any such
> > > impression, my apologies...You deserve nothing but credit for your service.)
> > But
> > > that invasion can only come from our sleeping at the guard post. I don't mean
> > we
> > > need to go Tancredo and close the borders while inserting tracking chips into
> > > everyone to follow them around. We are a nation of immigrants of all colors,
> > > shapes, and sizes, and we value freedom - going back to that shocking
> > statement
> > > from our hypocritical Founders' (or, if you want to take it back further, from
> > > Aristotle) that we obtain our rights not from government but by virtue of our
> > > existence. But, given that there are folks who would be quite pleased to stop
> > our
> > > breathing because we breathe (and Ron Paul's idea that if we just offer to
> > trade
> > > with them all will be well...when much of what we have to offer in trade is
> > what
> > > makes them want to eradicate us), prudent caution is in order. We just have
> > to
> > > figure out what "prudent caution" means for us collectively. Meanwhile, your
> > > point about decay from within is quite on target. And I think we're in
> > agreement
> > > (correct me if I'm wrong) that nobody in the arena is addressing the longer
> > term
> > > economic dangers sufficiently. It's not by chance that my kids (ages 7 and 9)
> > and
> > > I go to Mandarin Chinese class on Saturday mornings. Whether to be better
> > > equipped for saving our country or surviving it, we need to know China and
> > > understand our relationship with it in this new century, and we cannot sell
> > our
> > > existence to China in order to defend against terrorist threats. Your USSR
> > > anecdote is scarily apt.
> > >
> > > Finally, I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on ignorance. I've got no
> > beef
> > > with real conversation. Thus DoasIsayandnotasIdo Jefferson's quip about no
> > idea
> > > being too dangerous to discuss so long as reason is left free to combat it.
> > > Having grown up as a Republican in intolerant Seattle, where you can be
> > anything
> > > you want to be as long as you think correctly, I appreciate your tone. Thanks
> > for
> > > good dialogue!
> > >
> > > - Brian M.

No comments: