Why independents and undecided voters should vote for Barack Obama over John McCain
Monday, September 08, 2008
Apparently the number of undecideds has dropped quite a bit since the two party conventions to about 7%, but seven percent is still a large enough section of the population to make a huge difference in the upcoming election, so I've decided to write up a number of reasons why independents and undecided voters should go for Barack Obama and Joe Biden this time around instead of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
- Reason #1: After selecting VP candidates the McCain-Palin ticket has emerged as the risky option, while Obama-Biden is a safe bet.
Obama has also said that he chose Biden in order to have somebody that would be able to challenge his decisions and point out anything he may miss as a person, whereas McCain definitely has not chosen Palin to get advice from her on foreign affairs or anything else, except perhaps energy policy. This is also the reason why Palin is generally avoiding hard questions from the media for the time being, because she needs time to brush up on McCain's positions in order to not make a mistake in front of the media.
This article here makes the point a bit better than I could:
The pick is also the first presidential-level decision a candidate has to make. You learn a lot about the candidate. And with Obama and McCain, we have two men who have never been executives - just legislators, book-writers and celebrities. So the decision is the first time we can compare the two men on a presidential decision level.In short: an Obama-Biden ticket is a stable one, whereas McCain-Palin is a bit of a gamble. The former gives a relatively clear idea of what the next four years are going to be like; the latter is a roll of the dice.
In Joe Biden, Obama revealed his core temperamental conservatism. It was a safe choice of someone deeply versed in foreign policy, and with roots that connected to the working class white ethnics he needed. It wasn't flashy; and was even a little underwhelming; but it was highly professional.
What we have learned about John McCain from his selection of Sarah Palin is that he is as impulsive and reckless a decision-maker as George W. Bush...so last week, McCain picked someone he had only met once before. I repeat: he picked someone he had only met once before. His vetting chief sat Palin down for a face-to-face interview the Wednesday before last. It's very hard to overstate how nutty and irresponsible this is. Would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness?
- Reason #2: McCain and Palin have recently gone from simple stretching the truth into actual full-out lying.
Listening to [Obama] speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state senate.
- Reason #3: The GOP needs to renew. A McCain victory would reinforce the idea among the Republican Party that tactics as usual are successful and need to continue.
A loss, however, drives a political party out into the wilderness for a while where they generally nurse their wounds for a bit, regroup, focus on policy and appealing to average voters. This is one reason why a lot of Republicans were so excited in 1994 when they took control of Congress and the Senate, because they had done well in promoting their ideas to average voters, and this resulted in Bill Clinton's declaration of "the era of big government is over", a shrinking of government and pretty good financial policy for the next few years. The GOP of 2008 bears almost no resemblance to the GOP of 1994, and I think both Democrats and Republicans would like to see it return to a party like the one it was 14 years ago. To do that, however, they need to lose this year.
By the way, there's one other related danger here if McCain wins. The Democrats went with John Kerry as their candidate in 2004 based on the idea that military and electability would be the way to go, and that didn't work. This year they're going with Barack Obama who is campaigning on the idea of change in Washington. Well, if military service and electability doesn't work, and change and grassroots organization doesn't work, the party may come to conclude that the hard, cold reality is that the only way to win in an election is to be as negative as possible, to focus on character alone (building up the character of one's own candidate, knocking down the character of the other), and avoid issues. A McCain victory could end up bringing about an even more negative campaign in 2012 from both parties as a result of this.
- Reason #4: Neither party has a monopoly on energy policy, and energy independence comes about from average citizens and municipalities as much as the federal government.
The other thing to note here is that energy independence really has as much to do with average people and grassroots activity as with government. This is the point that Barack Obama made when he talked about proper tire pressure that was lost in a flurry of media attention and negative ads: that the government can actually do a lot simply by drawing attention to what the average individual should do. This includes proper tire pressure, simply removing junk from your car (= extra weight, more fuel), car pooling, buying a bike, all that. For example, proper tire pressure alone has the following effect:
The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.Most pollution is emitted from cities as well, so it's actually municipal government upon which should be exerted the most pressure. Take a look at this article:
If you fix the cities, do you fix the problem? With 50 percent of the entire human race currently living in cities and responsible for emitting up to 80 percent of all global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions every year, they certainly don't seem a bad place to start.So in fact, energy independence is something that needs to be done on the personal and municipal level, and the federal government can help out as well. Energy independence is possible only if average citizens are willing to make an effort. The federal government can help out through national programs and raising national awareness (imagine the president holding a press conference every week instructing people what to do to reduce their energy consumption, a tactic that costs nothing and ends up being an important part of an overall plan). On this issue then the two parties are actually not that relevant. Energy independence isn't something that the federal government alone is going to bring about.
- Reason #5: Passive-aggressive sarcasm, too much focus on character and little on issues from the McCain camp is a warning sign on what the next four years would be like.
Note: McCain's speech at the Republican National Convention also contained twice the number of personal references as Obama's did. This constant focus on his own personal story and interpretation of the world is another red flag.
- Reason #6: The fight against terrorism.
The late Tim Russert: Would you pledge to the American people that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb on your watch?The United States needs an administration that understands the complexities involved in the fight against terrorism. The argument could be made that McCain understands these as well after all his years of experience, but remember the first point about how a McCain administration includes an inexperienced VP to take power should anything happen to the President (and the VP takes control in the event of a surgery as well, not just death, so it's very realistic that we could see Palin taking over for a week or two), and also an Obama-Biden administration would be no pushover in terms of terrorism and foreign policy, so here as well the safe choice is Obama-Biden.
Joe Biden: I would pledge to keep us safe. If you told me, Tim, and this is not, this is complicated stuff. We talk about this in isolation. The fact of the matter is that the Iranians may get 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. The Pakistanis have hundreds, thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium. If by attacking Iran to stop them from getting 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium the government of Pakistan falls, who has missiles already deployed, with nuclear weapons on them that can already reach Israel, already reach India, then that's a bad bargain. Presidents make wise decisions informed not by a vacuum in which they operate, (but) by the situation they find themselves in the world. I will do all in my power to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but I will never take my eye off the ball. What is the greatest threat to the United States of America? 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Tehran, or an out-of-control Pakistan? It's not close.
Also, even Bill O'Reilly is convinced that Obama is tough on foreign policy:
After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy—that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.
- Reason #7: An Obama presidency would have a positive influence on democracy around the world.
He became famous for making extremely bizzare claims, such as that he had the IQ of 430, or that he possessed supernatural powers and can teleport or heal the sick with his power. In addition, he claimed that he was a secret adviser of South Korea's former military ruler, president Park Chung Hee and said that he would like to marry Park Geun Hye, his daughter.He also planned to give everybody in the country that got married a huge sum of money (I think it was something like $200,000) and wanted to move the UN (yes, the whole UN) to the Panmunjeom, which is the militarized border between North and South Korea.He was recently accused of defrauding his party members and defaming Park Geun Hye. During the elections, Huh had spread a photo of himself, allegedly taken with U.S. President George W. Bush. The photo was later proven to be doctored.
So that's the state of democracy here in South Korea. There are also physical fights in the National Assembly (the House), and there's an even stronger revulsion for politicians here than in North America. Japan is pretty dry and boring too, and so are a lot of countries. A McCain presidency would further cement the notion that one becomes president by spending decades in government and compromising one's views to suit one's base until finally the chance comes. An Obama presidency would show the opposite, that a person with enough intelligence, ambition and a message that appeals to the average person can become president if the people make it happen, and I suspect this would make the difference in a lot of countries in convincing some really good potential candidates to make a go for it as well, people that perhaps never would have thought it possible before.
- Reason #8: Admit it, you'd find Barack Obama being elected far more interesting than John McCain.
So those are some of the main reasons I believe independent and undecided voters should go for Barack Obama instead of John McCain this November 4th. Here's hoping that enough voters on election day will avoid the personality-centrism and uncertainty of a McCain-Palin ticket and instead cast a vote for the stability and long-term vision that the Obama-Biden ticket represents.
Oh, and by the way (last point, I promise), the economy over the past 50 years has grown faster under a Democratic administration than a Republican one. Keep that in mind as well when making the choice.
The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
4 comments:
Government funding of cultural events is actually a very good idea *IF* this attracts a lot of foreign tourists with their pockets full of dollars to spend. This improves the local economies of many regions, helps increasing the income of many families, and creates a lot of temporary jobs for people who would be otherwise unemployed.
Barack Obama who is running as an agent of change is part of the "old boy" network as evidenced by his vote on the Wall Street Bailout. He misrepresented Henry Kissenger's position on preconditions for dialogue with Iran. Arrogance combined with inexperience is a lethal combination. His economics is the capstone of the New Deal. It won't work in an economy overburdened by eccessive spending. He is a risk and I don't trust him to navigate through the morass of challenges in the third millenium. His connection with unsavory elements in his grassroots experience show him to be an opportunist of the worst political stripe. My impression is that a vote for Obama is a vote for Huey Long going national. Disaster looming.
The overwhelming majority of undecideds will break for McCain on election because they are not really undecided as to the vote but are undecided about telling anyone about it for a variety of reasons. obama is not a compelling agent of change given his penchant to associate with unsavories. America will remember who she is on election day and send him back to the Chicago bario from whence he came.
Anonymous: luckily Sarah Palin changed all that, making the McCain ticket the risky one. If he had chosen someone like Olympia Snowe independents would likely have broken his way but by choosing someone even more inexperienced and unsuited for the position McCain has undermined this.
Post a Comment