There can be no doubt that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is a once-in-a-generation phenomenon. Never before have young people been so energized about a presidential candidate; the enthusiasm surrounding the Illinois senator is remarkable. His message of change, hope and unity is resonating with the utmost excitement.
Such a message is all well and good, but there is good change and bad change; there is bringing people together to compromise on solutions to the day's problems and there is unifying the House, Senate and presidency under the banner of one political party to push forth that party's “unified” agenda.
The public is right to compare Obama to John F. Kennedy. Like Kennedy, he is likable, attractive, charismatic, charming—he has all the good personal traits one could ask for. But there is more to a president than being able to give a good speech and rally constituents to a cause.
On the surface, what Barack Obama represents is something new and fresh. Who does not like change or want our politicians to come together for the good of the American people?
Such is the brilliance of the Obama campaign; when the senator speaks, people listen, but he rarely talks about his policy proposals, proclaiming such things as “Healthcare for everyone!” without elaboration.
The problem with Obama, who was rated the #1 most liberal senator in 2007, resides in that very brilliance. People are rallying around his abstract message of change, not the kinds of changes he wishes to make. They do not examine his voting record, the more than 130 times he refused to take a firm position and instead voted “present” on issues facing him in the Illinois legislature. He has also yet to present any evidence that he has ever successfully reached a compromise on critical issues. How can we expect the good senator to effect change if he refuses to take a stand on crucial issues before him and has no record of serious compromise?
There is a reason why, as reported by the news website sacbee.com, volunteers in Sacramento, California were told to share their own “personal conversion” stories with voters and to avoid policy questions by telling callers to check out his website.
Call me old-fashioned, but last I checked, issues were the most important part of electing a president, yet with Obama you get empty rhetoric and “visit my site to find out where I stand.” So let us examine where he stands.
On healthcare, Obama has put forth a $65 billion a year universal healthcare plan—totaling $260 billion in four years—which he intends to pay for by raising taxes. He will establish a new government-run program that would pay for those who are uninsured to receive benefits that are the same as those of members of Congress or help them purchase private insurance.
Obama will establish and enforce new rules and standards with which private health insurance companies must comply. Employers will be forced to put up some money to help pay for his new plans.
The proposals are fiddled with problems, not the least of which is affordability with an already $9.2 trillion debt. And with a new government program available, who would want to purchase private insurance anyway? The new requirements that trample upon businesses' rights will cause costs to rise, not to go down. The plan simply does not address the fundamental reasons why healthcare is so expensive.
Government-controlled healthcare looks great on paper, but in reality it is deeply flawed, particularly with the loss of individual freedom that will result. Each time citizens cede more power to the government, they lose a little bit more of their liberty.
Next, Senator Obama supports a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Of course the senator ignores the fact that such a retreat would yield tremendous implications upon the Iraqi people. The potential for genocide to erupt is great, and the propaganda tool the terrorists would have by being able to claim that America is weak and defeated would give them tremendous aid.
Obama has recognized the military successes our troops have sustained, yet he has pounded the Iraqi government for not “getting its act together.” What Obama ignores is the historical context of the ethnic conflict in Iraq and the difficulty in creating a successful government—difficulty which we experienced ourselves in the decades following independence.
Obama says that we are bankrupting our future by staying in Iraq; however, the war takes up only 8.7% of the debt while entitlement programs take up 44% of the budget. He claims that his proposed $875 billion in spending proposals will be paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts and pulling us out of Iraq, but the end result is an even larger debt and a doubtlessly weaker economy.
Barack Obama's message is like the song of the mythical Sirens of Ancient Greece: it is both powerful and alluring, hard to resist, but if the American people heed his message, it will lead to the wrong change.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
All politicians are very vague on issues, it's how they win. Obama does take a clear stance on many issues, and has several specific plans, but like all other candidates with a chance at sucess, he isn't allways as clear as we may like. If he was more opinionated, he would put off many potential voters. Its a game they all play. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.
You're right that every politician plays the game, but he goes the extra mile, in my opinion. When McCain speaks, for instance, you actually get policy positions half the time. An Obama speech, however, neither gets into gritty details or speaks more than 30% - if even - about policy matters. That, to me, is a problem. He's out there giving this message of change without detailing specifics and it's resonating with people. It's a danger when a politician is succeeding with such strength with such an abstract message. Yes, all politicians play the game, but he goes the extra mile.
"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan