Bk. Hussein Ob.: Moderate Liberal Christian Muslim Fundamentalist

Not to get into the thankless and fruitless task of arguing with Hannity-ites, but this is kind of funny. My mom got an e-mail last night from one of her whack-job Republican cousins that quoted Obama as saying this in Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Of course it does not provide a page citation, because then you would be able to look it up. But I found the offending quote, and here's what it really says:

"... mostly [immigrants] want affirmation that they, too, are Americans. Whenever I appear before immigrant audiences, I can count on some good-natured ribbing from my staff after my speech; according to them, my remarks follow a three-part structure: 'I am your friend,' '[Fill in home country] has been a cradle of civilization,' and 'You embody the American dream.' They're right, my message is simple, for what I've come to understand in that my mere presence before these newly minted Americans serves notice that they matter, that they are voters critical to my success and full-fledged citizens entitled to respect.

Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship actually means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

(p. 261). Wow, what an insane and radical observation: law-abiding, pro-American immigrant communities would like to know that a candidate for political office will support them and recognize them as legitimate Americans. But of course people merrily forward the distorted version along without going a milimeter out of their way to find out whether its true or not (you can find out the real quote with a simple google search of the misquote in about 5 seconds - this isn't rocket surgery).

Anyway, F them. Shit like this helps me get over my left-wing Obama trashing. Let's get psyched up for the probable Pax Obama.

L'CHAIM! McCAIN!

Here's another big fat reason why I am not reassured by polls putting Obama ahead of McBain.

Oh, Florida. How many leftist hopes can you dash?

You have an urgent message from GERONAMI!

He doesn't have the oratory power of Cobra Commander, but the format is the same.

And like many on The Blogggg, he has serious misgivings about Barack Obama.

Who Is the Real Reverend Klein?

This guy has a nice take on the FagTax. His overview of the lack of assertiveness on the part of the left in tax policy is interesting as well.

But what you guys really need to read is his early take on Obama's health care plan. I think he is highly correct.

To Be Fair

Obama's tax plan appears to be slightly but noticeably better than Klinton's. He expressly proposes increasing the capital gains rate to 28%, which is not good enough but is a start. And as the article states, he seems to want to concentrate on using tax provisions to give lower working class people a boost. Klinton's plan appears to focus on creating a bunch of kinda goofy tax incentives for the middle class.

Cops Gone Wild

Thank goodness. As we hashed out quite thoroughly in e-debates past, I am no police-hater. Far from it. But the Philly PD needs to make a strong statement here. This kind of crap just plays into all the nonsense "don't snitch" crap. The PD cannot do its work effectively if it loses its political legitimacy by doing this kind of thing.

A Ban on Cluster Bombs

Since this is sort of my own pet issue and future career, I thought I would draw the blogggg's attention to the fact that representatives from many of the world's governments are now meeting in Dublin to adopt a ban on cluster munitions.

For an interesting video on the subject, check out this link:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/clusters/video2.htm

For more-than-necessary details on the status of the convention and the primary documents, click here:
http://www.clusterprocess.org/

And to find out which countries are part of the minority who refuse to participate and/or have come out strongly against banning cluster bombs, just look out your window (if you live in the US, Israel, Russia, China, India, or Pakistan).

Strategic Politics is No Excuse

See this. See especially #s 41, 48, and 49. Clearly, Obama and Klinton's sellout plans are a nod to the insurance lobby, not the electorate. This study was done in 2003, and if anything, the climate would be more favorable now.

Besides, the debate over this whole election seems to be more about symbolic and cultural politics ("why doesn't Obama wear an American flag pin?", "it would just be so great to finally have a black president.") rather than policy differences. There's no other way to explain the amount of rancor between the Obama and Klinton camps - two candidates with relatively small policy differences. If that's the case, how could Obama or Klinton possibly think that they could lose voters if they proposed a real health care plan? I doubt most Americans are even aware of the difference between Obama and Klinton's plans and a single payer system.

Once again, there's no excuse. None at all.

Obama: The False Prophet

The Blogg Is Back.

The links below are old news, but interesting to note. For all the silly cultural wedge politics about Obama being a left-wing nut/Second Coming of Progressive Politics, on one key issue (maybe the key issue), he is substantially more centrist than Klinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

(this guy is a well-respected center-left economist)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-demoro/sen-obama-please-no-mor_b_49920.html

(old and shrill in tone, but I think its underlying point is right)

I didn't necessarily recognize it right away, but the mandate thing seems to be an important difference. Maybe the West Virginia hicks weren't so stupid after all.

Now mind you, I will most certainly vote for Obama against McCain. Many times, if possible. But I think it's important to stay clear-headed about what he represents and what he does not. He is a centrist democrat, which is fine if that's what you support. But Obama is totally unsatisfactory from a social-democratic perspective, and I don't think he has any business enjoying the kind of rabid support from young left-wingers that he does.

Of course many people try to defend him on the grounds that "he needs to say this stuff to get elected." But I don't buy this. The Republicans don't seem to hesitate pushing for what they truly believe in, and it hasn't seemed to hurt them too badly in the post-Reagan era. If Obama believes in more left-wing policies then his policy recommendations should reflect that. He could compromise later on down the road if he had to. Besides, he's gonna get ripped up and down by the right-wing for "nationalizing healthcare" even under his current mushy pro-insurance industry plan, so he might as well throw something real out there.

Mike's Reply:

"I have to disagree slightly, of course. An important note in the second article is that Obama has already said that a single-payer system would be ideal. He would certainly support that plan. But, regardless of how outspoken or up front about it he is on that point, it is far from a political winner at the moment. Maybe after the election it will be a different story. (Hopefully with greater Dem majorities in both houses.)

Also, the mandate of coverage is the primary (only?) difference between the two plans, and Clinton's plan is no less a rearranging of the "deck chairs" than Obama's plan because it too still primarily relies on private insurance to cover everyone. Thus, to say that Obama's plan is "more centrist" is not necessarily true.

Republicans haven't been afraid to push their beliefs because for whatever reason the country has been behind them, and because their issues are generally the easy way and simple-minded solutions. (i.e. - "lower my taxes") Democrats generally have nuanced positions, and which require people to sacrifice things (such as tax dollars) that people are less willing to support. There is one big exception to this in current times. With respect to the Iraq War, although the solution is not necessarily simple-minded, the notion of "Get Out Now" is simple, and a majority of the country already backs it. Yet, "centrist" Dems have a point that there are logistical and possibly human rights issues that would have to be addressed, and makes their policy position (which requires a longer stay that the left would find unacceptable).\

My point is that Obama coming out strong for a single-payer system doesn't move the ball forward at all, especially if he isn't going to have a Congress that would pass it. I'm sure he's polled the issue, and right now it's probably a loser. It does no sense for him to grab on to an issue that issue going to allow him to win. However, once he gets into office, the House and Senate can put forth incredibly leftist plans that are closer to single-payer, and he can use the bully pulpit to drum up support for those plans."

My Reply to Mike's Reply:

Noting that "a single payer system would be ideal" is not a fair equivalent of "supports" or "proposes." What he truly believes in his deepest heart's soul is not a terribly relevant consideration with respect to his palatibility as a candidate for political office. His likely policy proposals and bill signings while in office, as predicted by his Senate term and his campaign proposals, are the only relevant considerations.

Klinton's plan sucks too, no question. Anything less than a hard push for a single-payer system is a nearly unforgivable offense for a Democrat in my book. But even if Klinton's mandate is the only difference, it is a significant difference both in terms of the likely effectiveness of the plan and how "left" or "centrist" it is. According to the research Krugman cites, Klinton's plan would cover more people at a greater overall cost (but at a lower cost per person) than Obama's plan. Advocating a public policy that delivers less public services to less people at a lower cost in terms of total public funds, as Obama does, is the very definition of "more centrist," at least as I understand the concept. Obama's mandate-less plan also allows better health risks (i.e., young and healthy workers) to opt out of the system and therefore put more pressure on the rest of the risk pool (i.e., "adverse selection"). The notion that better risks should have the right to opt out of a social insurance system (like, say, allowing high earners to opt out of Social Security) is a fundamentally anti-redistributive and conservative idea. Finally, the idea that the consumer is ultimately sovereign and should have the right to decide that buying healthcare is not in his or her best interest is a fundamentally conservative, free-market idea. Obama's plan observes this fiction while Klinton's "mandate" does not.

And I think it's a real chicken-and-egg thing with the whole "the American electorate just won't buy progressivism" thing. If it had been seriously pitched in the last 30 years by a charismatic, legitimate candidate with the whole might of the Democratic Party behind them, who knows where we'd be now? The fact is that the Republicans have effectively marketed a right-wing ideology for the last 30 years and the Democrats have poorly marketed a centrist ideology during that time. This was not inevitable, and there's no reason to just assume it couldn't be reversed if the will were there. If the polling doesn't support real social democratic policies right now then the Dems need to get out there and pound the pavement more, or else what's the point of having the party if it's just a mirror reflection of current polling numbers? Polling numbers probably support prayer and anti-evolution teaching in schools, banning gays from the military, and maybe even outlawing abortion, but you don't see Dems just conceding those issues. They push for them, as they should for a single payer plan do if they valued the policy goals and philosophy that support it. Besides, we all know it's the insurance lobby and not the polling numbers that provides the limit on healthcare policy.

Once again, the Democrats will be called anti-American socialists no matter how centrist they get. They might as well make proposals with some teeth if they really value social democratic policy goals. Bottom line for me: Obama's plan is both more centrist than, and inferior to, Klinton's plan, and the Democrats have no excuse for being so centrist that I'm willing to accept.