Pompo

Is Obama really an agent of change?
1/18/08|The Lawrentian| by Stephen Flynn - Opinions & Editorials

Whenever I ask somebody here at Lawrence who they are supporting in the primaries, the answer is almost always Barack Obama:

"I like the way he talks."
"He will bring change to Washington."
"He's a uniter."

I think most of Obama's supporters know little about his record as Senator and are swayed primarily by his rhetorical skills. Is he really the candidate of "Change"?

If you define change as having a "D" next to your name instead of an "R" then Obama will bring change to the White House, but Obama's election is unlikely to be a meaningful departure from the last 20 years of Bush and Clinton.

One thing you hear very often from the Obama campaign is that he will "bring the country together" and "break out of the old arguments." During George W. Bush's 2000 campaign, however, the former governor touted his record of bipartisan cooperation with the Democrats in the Texas Legislature. "I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect," he said at his Republican nomination speech, and yet partisan divide in our nation's capital remains as divisive as it was during the election of 1800.

The truth is that Obama's record in the Senate is that of a rank and file Democrat because he always votes down the party line. He gets either highly favorable or highly unfavorable ratings from ideological lobbies.

For example, he was rated zero percent by the National Right to Life Committee, rated 100 percent by Citizens for Tax Justice (they want to repeal the Bush tax cuts), eight percent by the U.S. Border Control and 100 percent by the NAACP for his affirmative action stance.

Can we honestly believe that with such a polarizing record he could compromise with the Republicans?

When Obama talks about change, does he mean ending the highly destructive war on drugs? Obama hasn't said anything about reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I, a category that defines the popular college drug as more dangerous and less medically useful than crystal meth.

When asked at a campaign stop about medical marijuana, he said nothing of allowing states to legalize it, just that he wouldn't prosecute. On the campaign trail back in November he said he didn't like the idea of people growing marijuana in their own homes, a position held by every other major candidate.

During a September 26 Democratic debate, Tim Russert asked each of the candidates if they would try to lower the 21 drinking age, a policy which for more than 20 years has elicited international ridicule. Along with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, Obama said "no" without further explanation.

Of course he was pandering to the concerned-parents voter bloc, an uninspiring application of the word "Change."

Lastly, Obama pays lip service to the anti-war crowd by saying he wants to end the war, but his record in the Senate shows otherwise. In 2005 and 2006, Obama voted to fund the war, along with every Republican. He never delivered a speech to the Senate floor about the war until it was politically expedient to do so in 2006. Obama reportedly said in 2004, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." And his position hasn't even changed since then.

He says he wants to bring the troops home, but his plan calls for leaving many of them behind to protect the recently built U.S. embassy -- which is larger than the Vatican, by the way -- and to engage in "counter-terrorism" operations. He doesn't even use the word "withdrawal" he says "redeploy." When Obama is president will the troops come home, or will they go to Kuwait like Obama has stated in many interviews?

You may be reading this and agreeing with the Senator, but please admit that this is only a slight change in policy from the current administration. Bush has already said he will begin withdrawing the troops. If Obama was serious about ending the war he would have voted against its funding. If he was serious about ending the war, he could at least have promised to have all the troops home by the end of his first term, which Edwards and Clinton have similarly not done. If Obama takes the oath of office, only time will judge the sincerity of his words.

__________________
---------------------
---------------------

Viper420

If ANY of the frontrunners win...its business as usual in Washington.

Samwise Ganja

Presidential nominees have been promising change in their slogans for decades, like "It's Time to Change America"--> Bill Clinton 1992, " America Needs a Change"--> Walter Mondale 1984, "A Leader, For a Change" --> Jimmy Carter, 1976, but has anything really changed that much???

__________________
I live for the nights i won't remeber with the friends i'll never forget

Genesis 3:18 "... thou shalt eat the herb of the field."


Proverbs 15:17 "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith."[1]


Psalms 104:14 "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man."

Majorguns420

I've watched all the posts on youtube about what each of the canidates said about medical use, Summary, Clinton -- More reasearch, You read Obama's, and McCain said no and yes, so he's pulling a John Carry. We can not count on our politians to change anything there, you might not under stand how much money is "Donated" to these guys to keep it Illeagal. Everyone loves the "BIG" word, ie. Big Oil, Big Pharmacy, Big Trees. These guys are called "Big" for a reason, most of us will never understand what BILLIONS is like, but you can buy many people for lots less than you think.
So a dialog on what we can do each of us, would be good, for me I'll keep smoking and telling the truth.

Keep Blazin
Guns420

gangstahippi

I hope Obama wins. But I don't think anything will change, either. That's just his catch phrase. It obviously works.

Bud&bluntman

Obama is simply another politician. You may like his agenda, his idea's or opinions, or the way he speaks. But the truth is, like every other democrat, they are going to promote change during their campains. Little will change when bush leaves office, except if democrats win taxes will be raised, affermative acction will be strengthend, and more money will be put to welfare and the lower class.

Freedom_User

Okay, sure... That's fair. Let me ask you this.

After Bush Sr, what political party brought us back up? Or was he just some guy with a fantastic agenda, ideas and opinions?

__________________
The feds continually use and twist this simple clause as an excuse to expand their own power - at the expense of our liberty.

"If you shot a ton of pot to the Sun, will it burn up and get everyone high?"

Bernie420

Brought us back up from what? Politicians don't really have much influence as far as the markets are concerned. If so then Jimmy Carter was the worst president since Hoover.

Bernie420

That's the gods honest truth.

KingDub

Typical Americans, blaming their politicians for their own failure to hold anyone in the government accountable for their actions. We live in a republic. If you want things to change, you have to do it.

But it's so much easier to just blame "the politicians."

Obama will bring change if you force him to. Any politician will. All it requires is pressure; and I don't mean voting in a CNN.com poll. Take a hint from the French--when your government fucks up, you teach them a lesson. Boycott. Go on strike. Hold your taxes back. Force the government to bend to your will.

Nothing stops the American people from doing any of these things--nothing except their lazy "blame Washington" mentality.

You're all right; nothing in America will change until you get involved in politics. If one can credit Obama with anything, it's bringing that message to young voters.