Another Tuesday, another primary that won’t resolve the Democratic nomination. For the first time since 1972, my home state’s primary is likely to take place before all the decisions are made. While Oregon’s votes won’t be counted for two more weeks, our mail-in ballots are already in hand. To date, the Antiplanner has only skirted the presidential campaign, but since I am about to vote, it seems worthwhile going over my reasoning.
For me, the biggest issue today is the war in Iraq. This war was a mistake in almost every possible way. It reduced our standing in the international community, made no sense at all as a part of the war on terror, ignored the Powell Doctrine of when and how we should go to war, and probably made life worse for most residents of Iraq (though better for the Kurdish minority). Domestically, the war’s high cost has dramatically reduced the value of the dollar, from 1.10 euros in 2002 to 0.64 euros today. You can yak about peak oil and Chinese demands for energy, but it was this devaluation more than anything else that has been responsible for the run up in fuel prices.
I will go further and say that I agree with Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, who (if I recall correctly) said that many Arab/Muslim grievances, though not their violent methods, against the United States are legitimate. The appropriate approach to the Muslim world is to resolve these grievances, not create more by starting a war that harms many innocent people. (At the risk of sounding even more extreme, I think that many, though not all, of Rev. Wright’s supposedly extreme grievances against white America and the cycle of violence perpetuated by this country are actually, when read in context, just as legitimate.)
At the same time, I am persuaded by fellow Oregonian Michael Totten and correspondent Michael Yon, both of whom have spent more time in Iraq than almost any other reporter, that the surge has been successful in reducing strife and antagonism in Iraq. While the surge has improved things for many Iraqis, when you consider how many have died in the war, it is hard to argue that the war itself was the best solution to Saddam Hussein.
When it comes to the war and international relations, I see Hillary and McCain as two sides of the same coin. Bill Clinton had a long history of waging war in other nations, and both Hillary and McCain sound pretty warlike. Only Barack Obama has the potential to diplomatically meet with our antagonists and critics, end the war, and restore America as a banner of freedom and not oppression.
With active ingredients such as tadalafil sales online Epimedium Sagittatum, Ginkgo, Cayenne Pepper, Ginseng and Saw Palmetto, which promote good sexual health. Males, might feel that they’re no more vital that pharma-bi.com viagra properien you maintain the bodies all-natural chemistry. One of the ways you can see catabolism in action is if cheapest viagra in canada you exercise. Ulnar nerve runs from the shoulder to why not find out more levitra on line the little finger. I probably disagree with Obama on almost every domestic issue (though I support his opposition to the McCain-Clinton gas tax moratorium). But I am willing to overlook those for the sake of ending the war’s harm to people in Iraq and throughout the rest of the world. So I will vote for Obama in the Oregon Democratic primary, and if he is nominated to run against McCain, I expect to vote for him in November.
If Obama somehow loses the nomination to Hillary, then my vote would turn on domestic issues. Right now, the biggest domestic problem is the devastation to world food markets caused by our inane subsidies to Archer-Daniels-Midland and the rest of the corn/ethanol industry (which are also, in part, a response to the high fuel prices caused by the Iraq war). But this is just one of the more glaring examples of fiscally insane policies, others including such things as rail transit and the Medicare prescription drug program.
At least when it comes to domestic spending, John McCain is a proven fiscal conservative. He is one of a handful of members of Congress (nearly all of them from either Arizona or Ron Paul’s district) who did not ask for any earmarks in the 2005 transportation bill. While Hillary and Obama would both probably endorse Representative Oberstar’s suggest $450 billion transportation bill in 2009, McCain is likely to hold the line against it. He is also skeptical about farm subsidies.
Of course, Hillary’s dismissive attitude towards economists doesn’t help. So, between Hillary and McCain, I have no problem supporting McCain this November.
Still, I won’t be too disappointed in the unlikely event that Hillary wins in November. The best way to generate support for any cause is to have an opponent you can demonize. With her high negative ratings, Hillary is a dream for any fiscally conservative grassroots organizer.
In short, I am optimistic about an election that I have little chance of influencing. No matter who wins, I can see something positive: somewhat improved foreign policy, slightly more sane domestic spending, or an opportunity for grassroots organizing. Realistically, I know that these are all cases of the glass being one-tenth full. But, in order to effectively function, I have to feel positive about something even as, deep in my heart, I fear for all our futures.
The part of me that wants to maximize the probability of “things getting better” supports Obama.
But the part of me that wants the current president’s party to be the rightful recipient of blame for all the problems he has caused supports McCain. You know that Republicans are secretly hoping for a Democratic victory so that they can blame the myriad problems caused and/or exacerbated by their president that they’ve been denying for 8 years on Obama/Hillary. The economy which has been “strengthening” and is “not a recession” will all of a sudden become “the worst economy since the Great Depression”. The war on Iraq which was “getting better everyday” will all of a sudden become a “hopeless morass of cowardly leadership”, etc. Everything that Republicans have been in denial about will suddenly become an opportunity to acknowledge reality and to blame it on the Democrats.
While I have no allegiance to the Democrats, I don’t want to see them blamed for Bush’s utter incompetence. Bush has essentially been given a free pass by his party and the media, for whatever reason. But at least if McCain wins his party can’t pass the buck.
Government is one area in which I endorse gridlock. So long as congress is held by Democrats, I want a Republican president.
I find political musings based on personal opinion not supported by fact, especially when it comes to presidential races and candidates, almost humorous in their borderline-absurd assumptions. These assumptions also highlight the fundamental differences between the two primary political philosophies in this country, and I think Obama makes personal stands against the reasons you’re voting for him, AP.
Also, D4P: the assumptions you make about Republican [lack of] ideology and principle astound me. Even your assumptions about what you call “reality” astound me. The economy has slowed down, sure, perhaps even to a crawl, but by definition is not in a recession. Last I checked the progress reports Iraq was getting better everyday. Now, will Republicans say the things you claim they will about the economy and the war in Iraq if a Democrat is elected? Probably. But I can guarantee you that, at least among the GOP base, the statements will be directed at the change in policy to their perceived worse that would come with either Democratic candidate in office, and I fail to see how that could be a cover for Bush’s alleged incompetence – it would be attacks against Obama’s/Clinton’s alleged ignorance and stupidity.
“I find political musings based on personal opinion not supported by fact, especially when it comes to presidential races and candidates, almost humorous in their borderline-absurd assumptions.”
I find political musings based on facts are usually as subjective an anyone’s personal opinion. Finding “facts” in a political conversation is universally hard. I’m much more interested in AP’s personal opinion. Thanks AP.
“I find political musings based on facts are usually as subjective an anyone’s personal opinion.”
Thank you, postmodernism.
“Finding ‘facts’ in a political conversation is universally hard. I’m much more interested in AP’s personal opinion. Thanks AP.”
I am not discrediting the Antiplanner’s personal opinions on anything. It’s just that that mentality, espoused in different ways by both AP and D4P illustrate a faith in persons rather than principles for the common good. Ronald Reagan said it best in his 1980 Convention address, and it is this same sentiment that Obama has alluded throughout all the debates, etc, even though his ideas for government are drastically different from Reagans. Reagan’s words are as follows:
“‘Trust me’ government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. Well my view of government places trust not in one person or one Party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The — The trust is where it belongs — in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders. That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact.”
Well, I certainly won’t deny that postmodernism has a large role in my philosophy. But I’m not completely sold to it, and I have a dear affection for “principles for the common good.” I enjoy a good discussion of political principles.
I’m just tired of hearing pundits spin “facts.” The length of this election is inhumane.
TexanOkie,
Your comment is potentially thoughtful but so vague as to be meaningless. You imply that I misstated some facts, but the only support you provide for this is that “Obama makes personal stands against the reasons you’re voting for him.”
I am voting for Obama because I think he can and will talk with foreign leaders more diplomatically than anyone else. The fact that so many people in Europe and other countries like Obama is one indication of this. Which stands has he taken that is against this or any other reason I stated?
Reasonable positions but I disagree.
The war was inevitable and it was the right time for many reasons. Staying in Iraq to ensure the peace is now our responsibility. I understand your position that the war is costing us oodles of cash since my trucking company is paying for that high priced fuel.
A far as Obama’s diplomatic demeanor I would argue while the Europeans like his style they are already allies and hove interests very close to our own. When dealing with middle eastern countries I would want a stronger, less compromising negotiator since the Arab world sees compromise as weakness and therefore an opportunity to take advantage. Strength brings respect.
Obama has be referred to as the most liberal senator in the senate. That alone is reason enough for me to vote against him.
Obama has made calls after nearly every debate, especially the most recent one, to focus on the issues rather than the personas and minutiae. He doesn’t ask you to trust in him, he asks you to trust in what he believes and stands for. The facts bit was more an issue with D4P, AP. Like Patrick, I too find your personal observations quite interesting and often insightful (even though I’m a municipal planner).
On a slightly off-topic note, I know I’ve asked for certain topics to be brought up in the past (namely American federalism), but here’s something more up your alley: The Austin Board of Realtors is having a strong reaction from Austin Mayor Will Wynn’s latest scheme to mandate green upgrades on houses before Austin residents are allowed to sell their homes. Existing homes, not new ones. The Austin Board of Realtors’ site against the plan, KeepAustinAffordable.com, explains this in detail, and I’m sure you and your loyal readers would be interested to hear your take on this specific project and others like it that exist elsewhere.
Interesting to note that Ron Paul says he prefers Obama over McCain “because of positions on foreign policy” — my reasoning as well.
I prefer McCain, or even Clinton, to Paul or Obama on foreign policy grounds.
“The war was inevitable and it was the right time for many reasons. Staying in Iraq to ensure the peace is now our responsibility. I understand your position that the war is costing us oodles of cash since my trucking company is paying for that high priced fuel.
A far as Obama’s diplomatic demeanor I would argue while the Europeans like his style they are already allies and hove interests very close to our own. When dealing with middle eastern countries I would want a stronger, less compromising negotiator since the Arab world sees compromise as weakness and therefore an opportunity to take advantage. Strength brings respect.”
I do hope this is an isolated view. The problem of Iraq was, and remains, an arab problem. The USA and UK governments ran roughshod over arab opinion, and then ended up going back to the arabs for help (which, due to their arrogance, they didn’t get). The USA has no business being in Iraq right now, and at the same time the failure of Europe to show some backbone in supporting the arab countries has led us to this pitiful situation.
The question of Iran is a good example. Both Clinton and McCain want to bomb Iran, but it will be interesting to see how they do that without European bases. I cannot honestly see why Europe would back an attack on a neighbouring country in that way. Apart from anything else, Europe would have to live with the fallout from that kind of attack, without any benefits whatsoever. At the same time, the military and economic strength that the USA has is being eroded in Iraq.
I can assure all of the readers of this thread that arabs, in general, appreciate courtesy and respect the same as anyone else. They do not see courtesy, generosity and kindness as anything other than the virtues that they are.