Postby Po Monkey Lounger » Sat May 12, 2012 1:14 pm
An interesting point on health care was that during the last presidential campaign, leading up to the election, Obama was AGAINST any plan that included an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, and McCain was FOR the individual mandate. Later, as President, and after seeing that the type type of government run health care program envisioned by the liberals/progressives would not work without the mandate, he shifted his position (as he has been prone to do on almost everything).
Something interesting about the gay civil rights debate is that when national polls are taken on the issue of same-sex marriage or unions, most of the public says that they are for it. However, when it comes time to enter the voting booth to actually vote on a measure that would legally allow and recognize such unions, a majority of the voters just can't pull the trigger in favor of it (as indicated by the 30 plus states who have enacted measures prohibiting such marriages/unions). I think part of the reason for this discrepancy is that when folks are talking in the abstract, it sounds like something that would be ok. But, when it comes to actually putting it in place, they start thinking about the unintended consequences and unknowns and change their minds. The folks who might consider voting for it, like me, are also concerned about the parameters of it and would want conditions placed upon any such laws to protect the rights of the church. Also playing into this is that the "most likely voters" (often older generations) are just not going to vote for such measures, no matter what, and they are they ones who actually show up to vote in higher percentages. And one other factor I think comes into play. There is an element of the gay community that are angry activists who use offensive "in your face" type of tactics to get their points across. This segment, while likely the minority of the national gay community, are the most vocal and visible, and would likely tend to turn off non-gay voters. I know they piss me off. The people that I know who are openly gay are not like that at all, and don't make their sexual preferences an issue or big deal. And while I can't condone their behavior, I am also not going to judge or shun them either. And it is these folks that I feel bad for and who cause me to think that they deserve some type of rights similar to the same legal rights given to heterosexual married couples (desp[ite the bad behavior of some in that national community).
The fact that over 30 states have enacted measures against gay marriage/unions is the reason why I said that Obama's statement that he is now FOR gay marriage, but thinks the states should have the right to decide, was the classic Obama style fence sitting position to take. His waffling and political nuance have become very predicatable.
Here are just a few examples of some Obama flipflops (some that I am glad he did):
1) He said in the campaign that he would close Gitmo. Gitmo is still open.
2) He said in the campaign that the enemy combatants (eg terrorists) captured and in custody deserved full civil rights of US citizens, including the right to a civilian criminal trial. Yet, the belated upcoming trials of these terrorists are going to occur in a military tribunal at Gitmo.
3) In the campaign, he indicated that waterboarding was "torture" and that we should never "torture" such captured enemy combatants. He was also critical of the other types of enhanced interrogation techniques. And while he may not have exactly flip flopped specifically on this issue, he apparently has no problem just killing them, as opposed to capturing them (eg Osama bin Ladin, and others). And he has not been shy about using the drones for this purpose. Under his policies, capturing them would just create too many headaches. So, just kill them instead. And in the liberal/progressive mind, I suppose that this is ok, as opposed to waterboarding them, or creating discomfort for the purpose of interrogation. Fascinating. Can anyone imagine what the liberal.progressive response would be if these same drone attacks and policies were being carried out by a Republican administration? We would have breathless and hysteria driven daily news reports and opinion columns condemning these actions, as well as daily charts in the newspapers showing body counts, espicially of the "collateral damage".
4) He used to have no problem with high gas prices as candidate Obama, but now the realities of such high gas prices upon his presidency is changing his tune. When the "poor" who he pretends to protect with his policies are paying a heavy price along with the so-called "rich", it doesn't sound as good now in actual practice. Oops. The higher the gas prices go, the lower his ratings.
5) As indicated above, he was against the individual health insurance mandate before he was for it.
6) And he was against gay marriage, before he was for it.
7) I could go on, but you get the point. etc.etc.
The lessons here are that you can't run the country using the same policies that you advocated as a state legislator and state senator from the state of Illinois. Square hole meet round peg. And just being anti-Bush is not a policy from which you can lead the country. You actually have to be "for" something and have guiding principles in order to effectively lead others. And despite the individual, specific arguments against his presidency (and there are many legitimate ones), the biggest failure of him as president, IMO, is his poor leadership. He is simply not a leader. He is the epitome of the "Manchurian Candidate" of the progressives, who discovered him after college and have groomed him to run for president ever since, including ghost writing books for him to attempt to appeal to the usual liberal/progressive special interests, while sanitizing his past for the masses. From their perspective, he was the perfect candidate --- both white and black --- and a religious chameleon, able to change color and blend in with whatever audience he is speaking to at the time. But, he is as empty and shallow as any president that has ever occupied the Oval Office ---- he can't function without his telepromptor and a script. And I seriously doubt the claims of his academic prowess (his grades in college have never been released). He is the classic psuedo-intellectual.
Romney has a good chance to defeat Obama, make no mistake about it. Many of the states that voted Democrat the last election are in play for the Republicans this fall. This will likely be the ugliest presidential campaign in our nation's history. So brace yourselves for a despicable ride. And IF Obama loses, I expect manufactured trouble and turmoil from many special interest groups ----eg new Black Panthers, unions, enviro-whackos, etc. --- including riots and violent civil disobedience. The stage for such is already being assembled.
God help us all.
You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning.
