Obama: The Candidate of Change?

There's no denying that Obama ran a campaign of change. He touted his lack of experience as a positive; he was the definition of outside-the-Beltway. However, let's look at that: what has he really changed?

In the recent bestseller Game Change, Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod described what the voters were looking for: "A president who can bring the country together, who can reach beyond partisanship, and who'll be tough on special interests. Obama could embody that sort of change, but Hillary could not."

There's no doubt that the election of Obama was an historic event. The first black president in a country with a shameful history of racism. In this sense, perhaps, Obama did bring the country together. He helped us collectively move past our dark history and perhaps into a post-racial nation. But that's about it. Obama's radical legislative agenda has actually helped drive our country further apart. He sparked the Tea Party movement, perhaps the biggest protest movement since Vietnam. His poll numbers are flagging. Candidates for whom he campaigns are losing. Obama is not a unifying force, he is a divisive one.

Obama pledged to move past partisanship. And sure the other day he met with GOP leaders in Baltimore. Good for him! Perhaps he is actually going to make good on this promise after a full year in office. But in his first year he was anything BUT non-partisan. His first meeting with the opposition party had him smugly declaring "I won." He promised to negotiate the major policy of health care reform in open on CSPAN (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/). Not only has he not kept this promise, the health care reform was negotiated in closed-door sessions without ANY Republican representation!

And lastly, Axelrod claimed that Obama would be tough on special interests. This might be the closest that Obama has come to fulfilling Axelrod's prophecy. He claimed that he would end the revolving door of lobbyists and former officials, and of course he hasn't (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/). He claimed he would set up an internet database of lobbying reports, and of course it hasn't happened yet (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/230/centralize-ethics-and-lobbying-information-for-vot/). Sure he seems tough on special interests, but in reality he is only tough on special interests he doesn't like, i.e., Big Business. He is completely in bed with Labor Unions, and that is just one example of special interests Obama courts. Who knows his true relationship with the Weather Underground, right?

So Axelrod claimed Obama could do these three things and Hillary couldn't. Well, he was wrong on one of those counts. Obama was not a Candidate of Change. He was a politician as usual: breaking promises and sleeping with the special interest groups. So it appears that his lack of experience in Washington was just that, lack of experience. It didn't signify someone who would step outside of politics as usual in our Capital. Maybe if Axelrod was wrong about Obama he was also wrong about Hillary. Maybe Hillary could, and can, achieve what Obama can't. Maybe she should try and show us in 2012. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

Ben Nelson and Bribery

Well Ben Nelson is on board with the health care bill according to the WaPo. However, there is a very interesting sentence in the article: "Nelson also secured other favors for his home state." This may be a very common occurence in the US Congress, but it is indeed bribery. Nelson had publicly stated his opposition to the bill. He met with the supporters of the bill and now supports it. And apparently, he also "secured otheer favors."

According to Black's Law Dicitonary 2nd. Edition, bribery is "the receving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whomsoever, whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to influence his behavior in office." According to the US Code, bribery occurs when someone "directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence any official act."

Well now... both of these definitions seem to fit the case at hand! Now I am not saying that bribery definitely occurred (although I do think it did) as that needs to be a legal determination. But there is definitely suspicious behavior. And bribery seems to me to be much worse than perjury. Maybe we need another Ken Starr here. But do you really think that this great hopeful "post-partisan" administration will look into its own actions? No, of course not. This is just Chicago politics. Back-room deals. Business as usual for the Obama Administration. And business as usual apparently means breaking the law ...

Boycott Marriage?

I was perusing Facebook earlier today, when I saw a link for the following website: National Marriage Boycott. Purportedly the group's goal is to get people to NOT marry until everyone can. Their definition of everyone being able to marry is the repeal of DOMA. Now this may seem like a worthy goal and a very creative method of protest, but let's think a little more critically here.

First off, boycotts are just plain stupid. For boycotts to actually achieve anything, the number of people boycotting have to be staggering. Otherwise, it's just an annoyance. Boycotting has FAR more to do with the boycotters than with the company/institution/thing being boycotted. It's about feeling good about activism. And, no surprise, this group was created at that "great" institution Stanford University, where rich kids go to feel good about themselves. The "pledge" to end marriage has just under 1000 signatories. Any guesses as to how many of those will actually take any further action to repeal DOMA? Not very many. This type of movement is all bark and no bite. And only 1000 signatories? The group claims to have chapters at schools other than Stanford, including UCLA, UCSB, and FSU. But only 1000?

Second off, the idea of boycotting marriage is not only ineffective, it is just plain offensive! Inherent in the idea of a boycott is the idea that those who don't partake in the boycottt are either perpetrating some evil or allowing some evil to be perpetrated by their inaction. I find that horrible offensive! As a strong same-sex marriage supporter I find the idea that my marriage is some type of evil to be disgusting. I would love to see same-sex marriage come to pass in this country, but it's not worth my marriage or my wife!

Third, what is this SPECIFIC boycott going to accomplish? Is anyone even going to notice? How many gay or "questioning" people out there are actually planning on getting married anytime soon? Isn't this boycott a little like me determining to personally boycott and not use tampons? I wasn't going to anyway! And who is really going to care? Sure, the supporters will cheer (absent myself obviously), but it's preaching to the choir. Those who oppose same-sex marriage couldn't care less if these kids don't get married! Boycotts usually attempt, and subsequently usually fail, at causing so much harm, usually financially, that someone caves. This movement can effect no real harm on society.

It's pointless, self-serving, and patently offensive. Yep, pretty much what I'd expect from my alma mater....

Is Health Care actually a Right?

I have heard alot of talk during the health care debate about whether it is a right or not. I admit I have been using the term "right" to describe health care. But I think it's far past time we clarify what is meant by that. At the very least, when I speak of health care as a right, I am simply talking about ACCESS. Everyone should have the opportunity to buy health care, whether or not they do so is simply up to them.

This all started ruminating in my head when I was listening to talk radio earlier today. This young man came on the radio and claimed that it was unfair that he didn't have health care. Of course the host asked him why. The young man said he didn't have health care because he was a musician by heart and a hairstylist by trade (in his 9-5, which didn't offer health care). He couldn't get health care and pursue his musical interests, or so he claimed. The host replied to this that it was unfair to require the rest of the country to pay for his health care solely so he can pursue music. This is the type of anecdote that really pisses me off!

Personally, I am working in a retail position full time. This is not, of course, where I would like to be or where I see my career. However, I have a family and I needed health care. So I took a job where it is provided. Now of course, I could've taken a job that was more fun or more interesting to me that didn't offer health care and then whined and moaned about how unfair life is. But that's not right and it's not American.

The whole debate boils down to a lack of personal responsibility. And this is the crux of the problem with the idea of health care as a right. The access to health care should be the only right. And after that, it is up to the individual to choose whether to buy it or not. If he doesn't because a job that provides it isn't fun or doesn't let him do what he wants, and he gets sick, then he deserves all the financial turmoil he gets. The Democrats want to take this kind of personal responsibility out of the equation.

Now there are, of course, certain times when it is the governemnt's responsibility to provide health care access. For example, for those genuinely unemployed and looking (we have something like this, it's called COBRA), uninsured children who can't make the decisions for themselves, and those with pre-existing conditions. But it's not the government's job to give some kid health care so he can be a musician, or artist, or work at a start-up, or sit on the couch all day! It's not my repsonsibility to pay for those people! If I can go out and work at a soul-sucking job 37 hours a week in order to get health care, then everyone else can too!

Harry Reid plays the BIGGEST race card there is...

The following just kind of makes your stomach turn:



If you don't want to watch the video, or are unable to, what he said was the following:

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this slow down, stop everything, let's start over. You think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough.'

    “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted, 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that. The day isn't quite right.'

    "When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today. History is repeating itself before our eyes. There are now those who don't think it is the right time to reform health care. If not now, when, madam president? But the reality for many that feel that way, it will never, never be a good time to reform health care."

Now this may not seem that bad, but just think about it: The Senate Majority Leader just compared the opposition party to slaveholders, misogynists, and racists. I guess there's not much substance to his beliefs, so he resorts to namecalling. This really should cost him his job as SML, although it's probably a moot point as he almost assuredly sealed his fate for next year. But of course, the spineless Democrats will not only fail to criticize him, as they did with Alan Grayson, they will probably hail him as a hero. What a sad party, especially one which is headed by a man who claimed to be "post-partisan."

Not only did Harry Reid make hyperbole look like an understatement, he was dead wrong. The Republican Party has done more than say "no." Democrats must either be idiots or willingly misleading their constituents on the Republicans role in Health Care Reform. They have submitted MULTIPLE bills to combat this problem. Three of which can be found here, here, and here. But of course he doesn't reference these. Perhaps he doesn't argue facts and proposals because he can't counter them. Or perhaps he is simply following the lead of his Leader.

America deserves better from her leaders. She certainly deserves better from the leaders of her leaders. This is a shame. Harry Reid is a shame.

The Very First Post!

So I finally took the plunge and created a blog. Hopefully I will be able to work out some theories and perhaps even some personal issues through this thing! See "About the Blog" for basic info.

My politics (as this will be the largest portion of posts) can be boiled down to one pithy little statement: I believe you have the freedom to do whatever the heck you want up until the point that your freedom infringes on someone else's freedom to do the same. That's it! I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian (yes, I chose that word to differentiate myself from those of the Civil variety), and I generally vote Republican. In no way, shape, or form am I a party loyalist though. Please feel free, and I genuinely mean this, to call me out when I contradict myself or my beliefs!

I am supremely interested in the Supreme Court. Constitutional Law is what I want to pursue as a career and it is a hobby. I monitor all current cases before the Court and will often comment on these. I tend to a rationalistic originalist interpretation of the Constitution. I believe that we should interpret the document in the way that the founders either wrote it or would have written it. This means that if an issue arises that isn't explicitly mentioned in the document, then we need to interpret the law in a way that is rational with the ideals, beliefs, and writings of our Founding Fathers. This would mean, for example, that Miranda is in, but Roe is out!

My sports are primarily college football, hockey, and the NFL. Secondary sports I follow are the NBA, college basketball, and the MLB. My teams are: Oklahoma Sooners (football only really, I don't care much for their basketball team), Stanford Cardinal (in any and all sports, what can I say, I am an alumnus), the Dallas Cowboys, the Dallas Stars, the Orlando Magic, and the Texas Rangers. Of course I will post on any issue I find interesting in any and all sports!

I love video games and play them whenever my schedule, wife, and child allow! I play primarily NCAA football, Call of Duty, and a variety of action-RPGs. I will sometimes blog about my gaming activities, but it will be minimal.

One Caveat: I am a committed Christian and I am sure that will taint many of my views! That is one thing that will be off-limits here. I am fine if my readers (assuming there will be any of course) don't share my religious views, in fact I expect many of them won't. And I don't have any problem with someone explaining something from their religious viewpoint, or lack thereof. The one thing that I will not allow is any disparaging of my religion. That's pretty much the only thing that will draw my ire.

That's the basics, I hope we can learn something together!