Could Obama be "Good for America"?

[mjs020294]

the reason Im not voting for McCain is because I know an Obama presidency will be bad and finally we will elected a conservative for a change.

Many thought the same about Tony Blair in 1997, and they are still waiting. 

[The White Tiger]

All good points Galt?, IF you think that the move in this country towards MORE socialism is only islolated to America.

If you think it is part of a greater move to something much bigger then...Carter doesn't get you Reagan...

He just might get you Hugo...Chavez...

Roosevelt didn't turn over power after 4 terms, Truman finally agreed that 2 terms were enough for any president, but that was after his 2 terms which meant that the party held presidential power for 6 terms.

The congressional democrats didn't get thrown out for another 40 years.

you capitulate your way...

...me?

...I'm heading for Colorado.

[firefall]

Could Obama be "Good for America"? I think so. Just like a bad tasting medicine, we will have to swallow 4 years of Obama to finally realize what is good for us.
 
They say an addict needs to hit rock bottom before they truely realize thier problems, and our country is an addict. It is addicted to spending money that isn't there. For decades the government has spent money it didn't have while saying "it's just temporary, we will stop later." That attitude has spread to the American consumer, and with devistating results. This current financial crisis wasn't caused by the Bush or Cheney or Pelosi or Harry Reid, it was caused by average Joes and Janes spending money they didn't have, buying houses they couldn't afford. Consumer spending has been rising around 7%/year for the last decade while wages and personal income has only risen 4%. We are addicted to deficit spending and the only way to kick that addiction is a hard crash down, and who better to bring that crash than "the man of change"
 
Pundits have compared Obama to Carter. But Carter was good for the country because he made us realize how much we needed a President like Reagan. The Republicans had force fed the country a diet of Nixon corruption and Ford ineptness and it was time for a "change". Carter made the GOP realize that the answer wasn't another Washington insider, a career politician, but a cowboy, a leading man. Similarly, the GOP has fallen into the same rut. 8 years of the son of a career politician, 8 years of gaffes and ineptness and what do they offer us, a crotchity old has been career Washington insider who 8 years ago was a maverick but now is little more than a neo-con puppet. Another Gerald Ford. In '76 the GOP rejected the Cowboy Reagan in favor of the career politician, and in '08 the innovative businessman who started 1 company, saved 2 others, and made the Winter Olympics a profitable venture was rejected for a 26 year Senator famous for surviving plane crashes (3 crashes, 1 caught fire on deck).
 
Obama will win this election. Barring some event of epic proportions Obama will be our next President. But the question is why. Sure he is a charismatic speaker and has a strong TV personna, but is that why he is leading in every poll? Or is it because the majority of voters don't see a choice. A young, vibrant, strong willed tax and spend socialist or an old, mistake prone, indecisive, tax and spend liberal who claims to be conservative. Those are the choices. The old days of a liberal candidate verses a conservative candidate have disappeared replaced with the liberal candidate vs. the slightly less liberal candidate. Given the choice between two similar products, people will invariably select the one that looks better.
 
Obama will be good for the country, because he will force the opposition party to realize we need clear choices. Reduce spending vs. increase spending is a choice, increase spending and increase spending not as much really isn't. An independent man vs a tool of the Chicago political machine is a choice, a Chicago political tool vs a military/oil industry tool really isn't. Obama will bring change, change to the GOP that will hopefully give us better choices in Congress and the White House.
 
Obama will be like catching chicken pox, it will be bad for a while, but once we are over it, we won't catch it again.

You do realize that the last "tax-and-spend" Democrat balanced the budget and left a huge surplus when he left office.  The G.O.P. conservative spent all of that and put us in a trillion dollar hole. I'll take the Democrat. 

Colorado? Are they seceding?

[Ironphist]

just sit still if you get dizzy from all the spin...

[spartan]

The one problem I see with your premise JG is I don't see a Newt or or Reagan on the horizon. Maybe one will come out of the woodwork, desperate times forcing someone to step up etc.

Maybe one of the little known Governors? Who will it be?

[John Galt?]

You do realize that the last "tax-and-spend" Democrat balanced the budget and left a huge surplus when he left office.  The G.O.P. conservative spent all of that and put us in a trillion dollar hole. I'll take the Democrat.

Realize it? That was my whole point. The last Dem president was more fiscally conservative than the "Conservative" republican that followed.  Because Bush won twice they thought they could get away with it. Only by losing will the party that claims to be "conservative" be forced to go back to their roots.

Colorado? Are they seceding?

Gaults Gulch, Co is a literary reference from "Atlas Shrugged"

The one problem I see with your premise JG is I don't see a Newt or or Reagan on the horizon. Maybe one will come out of the woodwork, desperate times forcing someone to step up etc.

Maybe one of the little known Governors? Who will it be?

Ron Paul, who the Rebulicans laughed away had some of the right ideas, but he lacked the leadership skills and charisma that was needed.  I was thinking Mitt Romney, who like Reagan was defeated by a Washington insider on his first run at the White house.

[The White Tiger]

I was a Mitt guy too, but after all that has gone on in this race I don't think Mitt would have done half as well against Obama as McCain has.

Mitt is a class guy but had some glaring weaknesses of his own. I remember that whole debate thing where he had someone speaking into his ear via a hidden mic or something.

He introduced a nationalized health care system, developed by a dream team, that failed in Massachusetts. It was remarkably similar to that debacle we slammed Hillary about in '92-'93 (I think the big complaint was the centerpiece of Mitt's plan, forced enrollment into a government approved health care provider). He promised healthcare without new taxes, Massachusetts had enormous budget defeicits that were going to force the state to not cover some individuals and some taxes had to be increased.

And then there was Mitt's complete inability to debate McCain in the primary's...McCain owned him. Can you imagine what they would have done to this good man that was not able to fight back appropriately? It would have been similar to George HW Bush.

[TbayBucs]

'Twas the night after elections,
And all through the town,
Tempers were flaring,
Emotions all up and down!

I, in my bathrobe,
With a cat in my lap,
Had cut off the TV,
Tired of political crap.

When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise,
I peered out of my window
And saw Obama and boys.

They had come for my wallet,
They wanted my pay,
To give to the others,
Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money,
And quick as a wink,
Jumped back on his bandwagon,
As I gagged from the stink.

He rallied his henchmen,
Who were pulling his cart,
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!

'On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi'
He screamed at the pairs!

They toward his cause
And as he flew out of sight,
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn't stand up and fight!

So I leave you to think,
On this one final note -
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM,
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!

[Biggs3535]

And then there was Mitt's complete inability to debate McCain in the primary's...McCain owned him. Can you imagine what they would have done to this good man that was not able to fight back appropriately? It would have been similar to George HW Bush.

OOOO, I completely disagree with you there.  All McCain had were his lies about Romney saying he would bring the troops home.

Where and when did you think McCain out-debated Romney?

[The White Tiger]

That was the one.

I don't think Mitt had the ability to get wicked. McCain can, but Mitt? Not so much.

And I liked the guy.

[Biggs3535]

That was the California debate.  I didn't think McCain came out looking very good after that, personally.  Anderson Cooper even called him out about that.

Mitt was pretty good during the debates, I thought.

[Boid Fink]

Why even bother with a president if you cannot give praise, and dole out hate?

And we bash England for having a "Queen", who is nothing but a figurehead anyway...

I think most of us understand how the system works.  If the country is running south, you blame the current regime, or at least those close to it...and BUsh has been in office for a while now, and so has his pops...so the President is just an easy target to ridicule.  Go look at his numbers.  He might be the ABSOLUTE WORST Prez of all time.  Of OUR lifetime.  I am just glad that GWB is not in charge anymore.  The guy was a fool, had no speaking abilities, no verbosity, and the country is in some straits.

I think a time for change is truly needed.  And maybe I am wrong, but it might not be as bad or as good as some of you think.  McCain/Obama...something needs to happen ASAP. 

And I think dudes who drive VOLVOs are Communists.  At least those that admit they drive them on a BUCS MB...LMAO!

[John Galt?]

He introduced a nationalized health care system, developed by a dream team, that failed in Massachusetts. It was remarkably similar to that debacle we slammed Hillary about in '92-'93 (I think the big complaint was the centerpiece of Mitt's plan, forced enrollment into a government approved health care provider). He promised healthcare without new taxes, Massachusetts had enormous budget defeicits that were going to force the state to not cover some individuals and some taxes had to be increased.

Whoa there. He never proposed a "Nationalized system". He specicifically wanted a state by state system where each state had their own unique plan to fit their unique needs. He said the advantage of a state by state system is if there are flaws in one system it won't affect the entire country and the other states can learn from the successes and failures of the other systems. His Mass plan involved using existing private insurance providers. Nationalized means a single Federal agency taking over for all the private carriers, with no choice or competition.

The failure of the Mass plan was because he wanted to slowly phase in different groups so that insurers would have time to forcast costs etc. but the legislature accelerated his plan to include everyone right at the start and the insurers never had time to actuarialize the costs. Also, after he left office the legislature made other changes that increased the costs of his plan.

[The White Tiger]

Yes JG, I toyed with using the term socialized. I did like Mitt's plan...until I heard about the deficits. I also heard that the legislature had promised to adhere to Mitt's request not to raise taxes - but the "fix" to the deficits have been to kick out folks making a certain annual salary and to raise taxes in order to cover this...precedence has now been established.

The last thing we need is for Republican's to work with liberal legislators to pass plans that allow for larger and larger confiscations of wealth - at the state level.

I think this is the reason Massachusetts is considering abolishing their state income tax "Massachusetts Proposal Would Repeal State Income Tax"

This may fit right into your theory that electing Obama might not be all bad - if folks in Massachusetts are considering abolishing their state income tax - it is due to tough times and confiscatory rates of federal and state income taxes as well as the other various taxes - property, sales, estate....

The people definitely have a responsibility to cover certain infrastructure issues - but government usues it to force reliance. From this reliance they gain power. More reliance means more power. If Tax-achusetts has had enough it's become interesting.

My probllem is that this conclusion isn't what usually happens. When liberal politicians are willing to embrace the tenets of Marx, have a personal philosophy which attracts very dangerous freinds with likeminded principles, it is usually indicative that a darker intent is behind this move. If Obama is elected I don't think he's going to want to see happen to him what happened to Carter - he and his freinds aren't going to want to be responsible for the loss of the executive branch for 12 years (or the eventual loss of the congressional majority they had for 40 years). They know what they're going to face when their agenda is put into place - they aren't going to give it up.

That underpins why I am voting for McCain.