![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.google.com%2Fazizhp%2FRu_QkUyButI%2FAAAAAAAAAK0%2FTQfT8szKMkk%2Fs144%2Frss64.png)
Friday, October 10, 2008
Why I am supporting Barack Obama http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2008/10/why-i-am-supporting-barack-oba.html
I have laid out the case for why I am voting for Barack Obama in as much detail as I could muster. I think there's a lot of room for disagreement and healthy discussion on the issues, and wanted to be specific as to what my support for Obama is based on (not just the "D" after his name alone). I freely confess that I am biased towards Democrats in general, but that bias is effect, not cause, of my principles and beliefs and positions on the issues, and they form the basis of my judgement here. I do hope someone else makes a similar detailedcase for support of McCain in response because I think these are useful.
It's not directly relevant, but I think this earlier essay of mine, reflecting on what 9-11 and the 2000 election portended for America from a civic perspective, is useful in providing some context to my worldview.
If you agree with me that Barack Obama is the change we need, then please join me in making a small contribution to his campaign:
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmy.barackobama.com%2Fpage%2Foutreach%2Fgraphic%2Fmain%2Fazizhp)
It's not directly relevant, but I think this earlier essay of mine, reflecting on what 9-11 and the 2000 election portended for America from a civic perspective, is useful in providing some context to my worldview.
If you agree with me that Barack Obama is the change we need, then please join me in making a small contribution to his campaign:
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Economic priorities http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=4486
Dave Schuler has a great post on fiscal policy that summarizes the economic picture for the United States and raises some questions about what priorities need to be. I noticed that one of the graphs makes an important point that many people do not seem to appreciate - Social Security is just fine. Look at the flatness of the Social Security line:
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglitteringeye.com%2Fimages%2Fcbooutlook2007.gif)
Overall, I agree that earmarks and other discretionary spending are simply not a significant problem, and Joe's formulation of these representing an operating expense of government is a good one. Likewise, McCain's call for a spending freeze might do more harm than good.
Looking at the big picture, it seems clear that the one area that we really do need to control is medicare/medicaid, whose growth will spiral out of control. That in itself is probably the best argument for single-payer healthcare. Actually, I think the best model for healthcare is likely the VA, which may surprise some people, but it's true - the VA system provides the best health care in the United States.
Overall, I agree that earmarks and other discretionary spending are simply not a significant problem, and Joe's formulation of these representing an operating expense of government is a good one. Likewise, McCain's call for a spending freeze might do more harm than good.
Looking at the big picture, it seems clear that the one area that we really do need to control is medicare/medicaid, whose growth will spiral out of control. That in itself is probably the best argument for single-payer healthcare. Actually, I think the best model for healthcare is likely the VA, which may surprise some people, but it's true - the VA system provides the best health care in the United States.
Labels: economy, health care
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Obama McCain Debate II: the best question http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2008/10/obama-mccain-debate-ii-the-bes.html
I think the best question of last night's debate was about personal sacrifice. Obama's answer was actually very conservative, in all the right ways.
Labels: Obama
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Civility http://www.redstate.com/diaries/blood_star/2008/oct/07/civility/
At RedState, a rare call for civility:
The response in the comments is instructive. In November, watch the whining begin. The true conservatives are girding for a long winter, while the zealous Republicanists are in total denial. Country second, party first, indeed.
In fact the more vilified people are for breaking ranks the greater the backlash against the incivility. We have to keep the discourse respectful. Because the more we look intolerant, the more independents move away from our thoughts and our views. It doesn't do the Country any good to attack someone as being dishonorable, unpatriotic, or somehow Treasonous for not checking the person with the (R) by their name.
The response in the comments is instructive. In November, watch the whining begin. The true conservatives are girding for a long winter, while the zealous Republicanists are in total denial. Country second, party first, indeed.
Labels: Republicans
Monday, October 06, 2008
Obama Satisfied All Doubts About Rezko http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/16/chicago-tribune-obama-sa_n_91742.html
This report from the Chicago Tribune details the conclusion of the editors and journalists at the Chicago Tribune after sitting down with barack Obama and asking him detailed questions about his ties to convicted land mogul Tony Rezko. The original article at the Chicago Tribune's website is off-line, so I am reproducing it here in full below the fold for reference.
March 16, 2008
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.
The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.
Along the way he confronted the starkest innuendo that has dogged him and his campaign for the presidency: the suggestion that the purchase of an adjacent lot by Rezko's wife subtly subsidized the Obamas' purchase of their home on Chicago's South Side. "This notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid is simply not true ... simply, factually, incorrect," Obama said Friday, adding that he didn't need any intervention from Rezko to grease the purchase of the house.
Having said that, Obama also admitted, "You can back up and say the red light should have gone off."
No argument here. The red light would have warned Obama that Rezko might want to own property adjoining his in order to tighten their relationship -- or that Rezko might be prepping to ask Obama for a favor at some later date. Instead, Obama now acknowledges that he was drawing too close to a campaign contributor and political player whose name was cropping up in articles about the Illinois culture of political sleaze.
***
Obama said he hadn't suspected Rezko of wrongdoing, or of scheming to exploit their friendship: They were friends who occasionally socialized; Rezko had been a loyal supporter; and, Obama says, Rezko had never asked him for anything in the many years they'd known one another. Rezko always had been above board with him, Obama explained, so "my instinct was to believe him" when Rezko said the talk of illicit dealings on his part was untrue.
For those who follow news about Obama's Rezko connection in granular detail: Obama said Friday that his "smaller lapse of judgment" was inviting Rezko to help him evaluate the house before he purchased it. Obama insists, though, that the Rezkos' simultaneous purchase of the abutting lot was entirely independent of his house purchase -- not a choreography of transactions, but a blur of dealings among the sellers' and buyers' real estate brokers and attorneys.
Obama's "bigger lapse of judgment," he said, came later when he bought a strip of the Rezko lot to expand his own yard. That embroiled the two men in negotiations over fencing and other issues at a time when Rezko was under increasing suspicion. That involvement with Rezko in the land deal, Obama said Friday, was the "boneheaded move" to which he's previously confessed. "In retrospect," he said Friday, "this was an error."
To be precise about that: Obama contends that all of his Rezko-related transactions were lawful and above reproach, but he didn't keep a prudent distance from Rezko.
***
So what really happened Friday when Obama detailed his Obama connection? And will his attempt to exorcise Rezko keep U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign from exploiting that connection?
Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko -- including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama's explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.
We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper.
When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.
Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.
***
We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we've been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 -- shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama's house purchase -- that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.
Friday's session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened.
Obama said Friday that voters who don't know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing ... and who they can trust." Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.
Obama tries to live by "high ethical standards," he said. Although "that doesn't excuse the mistake I made here."
Obama should have had Friday's discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn't, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it's like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information -- too eager to "control the narrative."
Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.
The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.
Along the way he confronted the starkest innuendo that has dogged him and his campaign for the presidency: the suggestion that the purchase of an adjacent lot by Rezko's wife subtly subsidized the Obamas' purchase of their home on Chicago's South Side. "This notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid is simply not true ... simply, factually, incorrect," Obama said Friday, adding that he didn't need any intervention from Rezko to grease the purchase of the house.
Having said that, Obama also admitted, "You can back up and say the red light should have gone off."
No argument here. The red light would have warned Obama that Rezko might want to own property adjoining his in order to tighten their relationship -- or that Rezko might be prepping to ask Obama for a favor at some later date. Instead, Obama now acknowledges that he was drawing too close to a campaign contributor and political player whose name was cropping up in articles about the Illinois culture of political sleaze.
***
Obama said he hadn't suspected Rezko of wrongdoing, or of scheming to exploit their friendship: They were friends who occasionally socialized; Rezko had been a loyal supporter; and, Obama says, Rezko had never asked him for anything in the many years they'd known one another. Rezko always had been above board with him, Obama explained, so "my instinct was to believe him" when Rezko said the talk of illicit dealings on his part was untrue.
For those who follow news about Obama's Rezko connection in granular detail: Obama said Friday that his "smaller lapse of judgment" was inviting Rezko to help him evaluate the house before he purchased it. Obama insists, though, that the Rezkos' simultaneous purchase of the abutting lot was entirely independent of his house purchase -- not a choreography of transactions, but a blur of dealings among the sellers' and buyers' real estate brokers and attorneys.
Obama's "bigger lapse of judgment," he said, came later when he bought a strip of the Rezko lot to expand his own yard. That embroiled the two men in negotiations over fencing and other issues at a time when Rezko was under increasing suspicion. That involvement with Rezko in the land deal, Obama said Friday, was the "boneheaded move" to which he's previously confessed. "In retrospect," he said Friday, "this was an error."
To be precise about that: Obama contends that all of his Rezko-related transactions were lawful and above reproach, but he didn't keep a prudent distance from Rezko.
***
So what really happened Friday when Obama detailed his Obama connection? And will his attempt to exorcise Rezko keep U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign from exploiting that connection?
Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko -- including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama's explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.
We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper.
When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.
Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.
***
We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we've been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 -- shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama's house purchase -- that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.
Friday's session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened.
Obama said Friday that voters who don't know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing ... and who they can trust." Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.
Obama tries to live by "high ethical standards," he said. Although "that doesn't excuse the mistake I made here."
Obama should have had Friday's discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn't, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it's like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information -- too eager to "control the narrative."
Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.cafepress.com%2Fproduct%2F14411548_240x240_Front.jpg)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.cafepress.com%2Fproduct%2F14561719_240x240_Front.jpg)
