Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Has Obama Delivered?

With the exception of Sean, I suspect that not too many Free Racine readers voted for Barrack Obama in 2008. So the following will probably be a fruitless exercise.

To those of you who did vote for Barrack Obama, I am sure you had your reasons. Please reflect on those reasons. Perhaps you thought he would unify the country or improve our economy or improve our standing in the world with allies and adversaries. But only you know the reason you voted for Obama. I have a simple request; evaluate whether President Obama has delivered. And by all means share your thoughts here.


GearHead said...

Obama held the 18-24 vote by a margin of over 2 to 1. I'm thinking those fading "yes we can" posters in their childhood bedroom in their parents house speaks the real truth about delivering hopeless change. The thrill is gone, replaced with more mature (if not sobered) young adults.

Sean Cranley said...

Obama wasn't foolish enough to pick a whacky ditz like Sarah Palin to be one heart beat away from the oval office. Nuff Said!

BradK said...

Joe Biden's not a wacky ditz?

Denis Navratil said...

Sean, surely you voted for Obama for reasons in addition to his fine choice of vp, no?

BradK said...

I voted for him in 2008 for several reasons. I would say that he delivered partially on some of those reasons.

I am currently and officially "undecided" and probably will be until the moment of reckoning when I pull the lever (don't worry, it won't be my first time or anything...).

The reasons I have to support either candidate are numerous and extensive, as are the reasons I would NOT support either candidate. I think a couple years ago I moaned about our two-party system, and seeing as that hasn't changed, it would appear that I still have to figure out where the sales ultimately fall.

BradK said...


though "sales" seems appropriate as well considering the $2 BILLION dollars spent on the campaigns.

Denis Navratil said...

Wow, a real "undecided!" What's more, I believe you. I never thought I would actually have an opportunity to converse with an "undecided" as I thought they were about as populous as unicorns. What a treat.

I know you to be both a moderate politically so I will spare you a highly partisan appeal for your vote. But how about contemplating the Bengazi tragedy? At a minimum, the president has been less than forthcoming about the attack and the administrations response. Add to that conflicting stories etc.... and a reasonable person such as yourself must at least entertain the possibility that the truth, once known, will not put the president in a favorable light. One must wonder, how bad is the truth? Clearly the truth is bad enough - absent any other explanation - that the President Obama does not want you, BradK, to know the truth when you pull that lever. Could the truth result in disturbing revelations about coverups, etc... that left good soldiers to die for domestic political reasons... and impeachment of President Obama? And might it be better to eliminate that possibility altogether by electing a moderate Republican? My two cents, thanks for reading.

Denis Navratil said...

meant to say both moderate politically and in temperament.

BradK said...

On that topic, Denis, I don't give the President a pass. I think mistakes were made, and "owning up to them" without fingering a scapegoat is what many would expect from the President. I think "the buck stops here" is what is expected of the CINC.

Having said that, I don't really have a "swing" issue per se, but I am more aligned with the right on this one.

In the same breath, I don't give a pass to R.R. over Iran-Contra either. Would that have swayed your vote (if that had been exposed in R.R.'s first term)?

Denis Navratil said...

I have to say that I'm more than a little fuzzy on the details of Iran-Contra so I can't really answer that question without doing a bit of research. My generic answer is that I tend not to vote for those who I believe have behaved dishonestly and or dishonorably unless the opponent is even more dishonest or dishonorable. I would have a hard time concluding that at present re Mitt Romney.

BradK said...

On a contrary point, I believe that the President is more aligned to my beliefs in what is currently tagged as "marriage equality" (though I would consider it a human equality / human rights issue). I know we went back and forth on that on a different post some time ago.

Not trying to make a list, but generally speaking, I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative, though even there I don't subscribe 100% to either of their agendas. I just tend to lean toward them.

Denis Navratil said...

On the gay marriage question, you might want to read this article. It is written by a great thinker, Dennis Prager, who might give you a bit to think about.

BradK said...

Read it. Will respond later when not confined to the phone :-)

Denis Navratil said...

My own reaction is that I agree with DP that the situation is arguably unfair to gays. The proper solution would be, IMHO, to have a similar institution with a name other than marriage. The problem I think is that we also need to be fair to religious or other institutions that find homosexuality sinful and do not wish to elevate the relationships or to recognize them or to be subject to state regulations regarding them. To be fair again we (ie individuals, organizations etc...) should be able to similarly reject traditional marriage, though I have to admit I haven't thought through the potential consequences of that one. I look forward to your reaction.

BradK said...

Well, I read the article, and I think the argument makes a false pre-supposition and than a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) by claiming that "because no one else said so" it couldn't POSSIBLY be true, and therefore making the argument is arguing all those who never said anything. Before Moses said it, no one said it, therefore Moses should have been dismissed just as easily according to that argument.

The pre-supposition that it asserts is that -

"Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant, there is no moral equivalence between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage"

Although there are characteristics between men and women that are significantly different, that doesn't mean it applies to all things - like basic rights that should be protected (like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

I guess I'm not dismissing the article completely, it presents an argument, but I don't personally find it compelling or without what I consider significant faults.

In response to your other point - if the issue is the word "marriage" then we're getting hung up on semantics. Legally a civil union recognized by the state is called a "marriage" - there's a lot of history and etymology behind that word. What's the difference to you if what that civil union between two gay people is called "marriage"? Isn't something as sacred and personal to you more of an issue of what YOU believe it means than what someone else does? Do all the "sham marriages" that exist because they were pre-arranged in all the years of history (and continuing to today in many current cultures) not dilute the meaning just as much (if not more) already? It doesn't matter what others call their relationship. In the developed world, a legally binding contract between two consenting adults is just that. Call it what you will, but don't project your personal meaning of the word or institution on others. I dare say that deprives them the right to call it what they will and assign their own worth to it.

Finally (breathe....)

We did, as a society, force certain institutions to recognize interracial marriages that they didn't previously believe, we also forced the parochial schools to teach that the Earth was round and that the solar system is heliocentric. There's no precedent that we as society cannot do that. Is it right? Debatable. And a longer conversation than this one. I don't believe we can allow an institution to deprive humans of their civil rights because they call it their religion, but then again, we also have the right to change religions on a whim as well.

That all came out more jumbled and less organized than I had hoped. Ah well....


Denis Navratil said...

"I don't believe we can allow an institution to deprive humans of their civil rights because they call it their religion..."

Your statement illustrates to me a potentially serious problem, that is, the end of the freedom of religion. Perhaps you are OK with the tradeoff - new rights for gays, the end of rights for virtually all traditional religions. For me, I think we shouldn't go there, especially as we ought to be able to extend state rights to gays, keep marriage as a religion/state hybrid, while allowing religions and or individuals to freely choose not to recognize or endorse either institution.

Unfortunately, just as this discussion is getting very interesting, I will be going out of town for a few days.

BradK said...

Maybe we'll get back into it when you get back. I'm nearly certain our Freedoms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights on the Federal Level and reserved by the States on the state level don't include protection of one right if it infringes on another's pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a religion called for, say, ritual human sacrifice, we couldn't shrug our shoulders and say "well, freedom of religion!".

Yes, it's a pseudo-straw man, but there is a point that can be derived.

Anonymous said...

Sara Pali. was a Joke, I admit I made the mistake as an independent. He has not delivered, his efforts went into socialized medicine versus addressing the Economy .
I just hope Ohio goes the right direction, I suspect they will

BradK said...

In all fairness Anon/Denis, this has turned into the re-hash of the thread where we debated polygamy/gay marriage. I apologize for taking us on that tangent. Denis, if you would like to continue the discussion we started on a new thread or maybe at Shillings some night, I'm always up for it.

Back to the question at hand of "has Obama delivered..."

Anonymous said...

Does anyone want to go out tonight for some Boos?

Sean Cranley said...

Interesting discussion, I think Brad represents my views on the gay marriage issue pretty very closely and eloquently.

Has Obama delivered? Yes, he:

Saved American automobile manufacturing and thereby quite possily American Manufacturing.

Got us out of Bu$h's Debacle in Iraqle

Getting us OUT of Afghanistan

With so many soldiers coming home from Bu$h's wars with serious physical and mental health problems facing long waits for services, Obama increased the 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and the 2011 budget by 10 percent. He also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.

Stopped Bu$h's bleeding of more the 700,000 jobs per month

Passed Obamacare which means my 20 something daughters are on my insurance and have access to the healthcare they need.

Passed Obamacare, so corporate insurance profiteers can't deny access to heathcare because of pre-existing conditions.

Passed Obamacare, thus prohibiting corporate insurance profiteers from kicking people off their insurance when they get sick

Anonymous said...

Yes, Obama has delivered. He promised to "fundamentally change America", a promise that should have sounded terrifying. Socialized medicine is the end game and after next week it cannot be stopped. More and more wealth will be shifted to the government overseers and the systematic elimination of individual rights (the Constitution guarantees the rights of individuals, not groups) will continue. The trial balloon has been limiting soda and McDonald's but in the future everything will be controlled. Young people growing up now will think things were always this way and accept them, future generations will be even more numbed to the decay in rights.

Brave New World (but with people cloned for body parts, not slaves - we won't need more of those!) meets 1984!

Sean Cranley said...

Ano sputters "Socialism" but he has no idea what it means. Obamacare keeps medical providers PRIVATE and insurance providers PRIVATE.

The only socialized medicine in America is the Veterans Adminstration where the hospitals are owned by th government, the healthcare professionals are employed by the government and the government pays the bills AND IT WORKS GREAT!

More Obama deliveries:

Made the call to go ahead and kill Osama bin Laden!

Passed the stimulus bill that dispite being 1/3 tax cuts (which are NOT stimulative) created or saved 3 million jobs according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)!

Made it so that children brought here illegally through not fault of their own need not be torn from the only country they've ever known!

Rehabilitated America's reputation on the world after the war criminal agressions of the Bu$h Junta

Obama's stimulus DOUBLED America's renewable energy production since 2008 helping us progress toward that day when we will not be dependent on the middle east for oil. And if anyone thinks that Drill Baby Drill is the answer then they need to know that America uses 25% of the world's oil and is etimated to have 2% of the world's oil reserves.

Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Sean Cranley said...

Created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect American citizens from Wall Street's credit predations.

Got the Frank-Dodd bill passed, which is a good start at RE-regulating the financial sector who caused the 2008 collapse due to Republicon deregulation.

Toppled the Lybian terrorist dictator Moammar Gaddafi and told Egyptian dictator Mubarrack to go (something he could do with leverage because of the large amount of foreign aid we give to the Egyptian military).

Stopped the Bu$hite torture regime.

Took student loans away from the banking sector profiteers.

Obamacare (Which Ryan/Romney vow to repeal) closed the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D prescription converage. So if R&R are able to work their will, seniors will be paying a lot more out of pocket for their prescriptions. And of course I must point out that faux deficit hawk Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, which was NOT FUNDED and therefore added to the debt. And that makes him a complete hypocrite. But then if you lived in WI's 1st CD and payed any attention at all to real news sources, you already knew that. If not, you might actually believe the R&R lie that Obama cut $700B in Medicare services.

Obama has tripled the number of Medicare fraud investigators, resulting in a spike in criminal prosecutions.

Sean Cranley said...

Made the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cover health care for 4 million more children, paid for by a tax increase on tobacco products.

Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, giving women who are paid less than men for the same work the right to sue their employers after they find out about the discrimination, even if that discrimination happened years ago.

Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB.

Put limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration.

Ended the Bush Administration's stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date.

Authorized Navy SEALs to successfully rescue U.S. Capitain from Somali Pirates.

Forced Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals.

Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back.

Anonymous said...

Sean Cranley

Anonymous said...

Sean Cranley

Anonymous said...

Sean Cranley

Anonymous said...

Root Canal Siren

Sean Cranley said...

Yup Ano, It's me, just delivering the goods once again! Truth good my friend. It won't hurt you.

Jeremy Richardson said...

Use the cake for cake crumbs. and that they all are helpful, and that we most likely would not manage while not most of them. Flimsily constructed plastic shelving cannot withstand heavy loads, especially door shelving.