Today on Blogcritics
Home » president obama

president obama

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Illinois Senator Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States and the first African American President on January 20th, 2009 after his charismatic style, eloquent public speeches, and message of change helped him win the November 2008 election.

Barack Obama and running mate Joe Biden also benefited from a strong grass roots political organization and public backlash against some of the perceived mistakes of the previous Bush administration.

President Obama has inherited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an economic slump and a variety of simmering domestic issues. In February of 2009, President Obama signed into law a $787 billion dollar stimulus package targeted at kick-starting the economy. Early in his presidency he has sought to overturn some of George W Bush's more controversial decisions, more specifically related to the ban on stem cell research and the existence of the Guantanamo Bay prison facility.

You'll find both Obama's supporters and detractors blogging about our 44th president at sites like Bartcop and Radioactive Liberty.

Powered by

About Apoliticus.com Editors

President Obama

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

See, I think it’s over for John McCain. Why do I say that? Just look at the media coverage of this election. The media usually sees fit to let Obama make his case directly to the American people via extended video byte. Surrounded by smiling and adoring devotees, using his best ministerial prose, voice booming, challenging, awake, bright eyed, vibrant, he sounds like he’s already president. If the media even mentions McCain in contrast, they usually quote him. His words come across as out of touch or weak, and maybe even cringe-worthy. In the rare cases where there is a video of McCain speaking for himself, it’s even less impressive. McCain is going to flub at least one word, and you almost wonder whether he filmed the video himself in his basement, in front of a green curtain.

It’s not just media bias, although the rampant ageism that the media seems to engage in is an atrocious and disgraceful spectacle. John McCain is running a horrendously terrible campaign. His recent gaffe on the Czech Republic is just another in a long string of cases in point. His comments about not knowing much about the economy or the Internet add to the idea that McCain is a stodgy, old fuddy duddy – and these are comments being made by McCain himself. The “average Joe” theme may have worked a few years ago, but after eight years of Bush, being an average Joe is political suicide. Further proof that the end is near for McCain, we never hear him talk about his views, he only talks about why Barack Obama’s views are wrong. This election will not be a referendum on Barack Obama.

This election is over. I will pull the lever in November in support of the GOP but it will be a half hearted vote. Too bad I couldn’t agree with Obama’s platform because I’d love to be one of the people voting for the first black president. I guess I will have to go on with the rest of my life being one of “those people.”

And the election of Obama isn’t going to be some nightmare scenario. I really don’t think a President Obama would be as bad as some suggest. And I’m not talking about his recent jump to the center either. He simply won’t be able to mess things up as bad as people think, just like, despite the impassioned pleas by the “Bush Deranged Left” to the contrary, Bush didn’t mess things up too much either. What’s that you say? What about the Iraq war and the economy and Katrina and the endless string of wrong track polling? I’m trying to be fair about what an Obama presidency will look like, so I’d as you to be fair about the reality of Bush’s impacts as well.

Sure, we are in a hot war in Iraq. Taking out Saddam was a presidential objective since 1998, a policy started by Bill Clinton, carried out by George W Bush. We’re taking off our hindsight glasses now and speaking with honesty about the situation – Saddam was a bad guy and taking him out wasn’t a partisan issue until the left got disgusted with Bush. Was the case to go to war badly made? Yes. Was the war effort executed poorly? Yes. At least until 2007. Given 4000 deaths, was it worth it? No. But the underlying idea of liberating Iraq was a good one. That the execution stunk doesn’t change that and the fact that the situation is now getting better should matter. Leaving now won’t bring those 4000 plus Americans back from the dead, but leaving will make their sacrifice pointless. We should progress accordingly. Credit is due to Bush, and especially McCain, for not just staying the course, but putting General Petraeus in charge, and pushing for a change in strategy with the surge. That the change in strategy may allow us to make something out of the mess in Iraq is no small thing.

In terms of the economy, we are going through a rough economic cycle right now. This is a natural part of our economic system (recently 1960-1, 1969-70, 1973-75, 1980-82, 1990-91, 2001, and now 2008) and is not indicative of an underlying problem with the economy that needs to be “fixed.” The truth is that our economy IS fundamentally sound, but that doesn’t change the reality of the current economic downturn either. Our current situation is in some ways the result of the low interest rate policies of Alan Greenspan – whom Clinton enthusiastically reappointed term after term. Likewise high energy prices, and the impacts of that on the rest of the economy are also the result of short-sighted environmentalism that is generally supported by the left. Would our economic situation have been any different if Gore won Florida back in 2000? Taxes would be higher, but the big picture would mostly be the same.

I won’t dwell too much on Katrina, because it is obvious to most folks that the president doesn’t control the weather. Sure, he took 4 days to even go to New Orleans. I find it hard to believe the Secret Service would have let him go any sooner, considering that up till that point, the whole effort was about getting people OUT of New Orleans. Under the hysterics of a Bush Deranged left, it sounds like a legal case for negligence but the reality is that Katrina was just a terrible tragedy, and as a country we simply do not prepare for such things very well. The notion that someone has to die for the safety measures to be taken has always been true no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office. President Obama won’t be able to keep Mother Nature from sending Category 5 hurricanes in our direction. Should such a hurricane once again hit a city that is 6 feet below sea level, don’t expect a miracle from the U.S. Government then either, no matter who is in command.

Presidents can help pass laws that give or restrict certain freedoms, or raise or lower taxes that might slightly help or hurt the overall economy. Aside from the well trodden hot button soft issues of the 2nd Amendment, abortion rights and gay rights, the government cannot change the basic tenets of our existence, they cannot easily change the bill of rights, they cannot fix or break the economy (except perhaps with protectionism). Technically it is difficult to change these things and politically even more difficult. Although we like to believe in a higher power, and although that idea serves us well in terms of hyperbole and exciting presidential elections, the President is not god.

Likewise, President Obama won’t be the salvation that many on the Left expect him to be, nor the destructive, socialistic force that the Right fears. By his own comments, Obama won’t roll back free trade. Ironically, thanks to the changes in direction forwarded by George W Bush and John McCain, Obama won’t be able to irresponsibly exit Iraq. Politically, Obama won’t be able to raise taxes as much as he claimed during the primary. And it won’t be practical for Obama to materially change the way we execute the War on Terror, although the recent Supreme Court decision in Boumedine will make it harder for him to do so.

Hillary supporters and Republicans who hate McCain take note: President Obama won’t be out in four years. Obama will make his missteps, and he won’t please large swaths of the populace. But so what? George Bush did the same thing and got re-elected. Historically the incumbent, especially in national politics, is heavily favored in a follow-up election. Obama isn’t Carter. Given the timing of the current recession, and the progress made in Iraq, the next President will be able to claim near instant success in both areas, largely due to favorable timing and (this is the height of irony) staying the course.

Getting into the territory that does concern me most, Obama will usher in a new wave of liberal Democratic power in our halls of government. With the same party controlling both houses of congress for at least some of this time, Obama will be able to appoint his way to a strong left majority in the Supreme Court. Leaving a Reagan-like legacy in his wake, Obama will set the stage for his VP to take over, potentially extending Democratic control of the White House for the next 16 years. All the while, pushing through programs that mean higher government burdens on tax paying Americans, who are a smaller and smaller minority anyway. And more regulations, safeguards and other basics of the Democratic platform. And our military will be smaller and less well funded and less well prepared for a crisis. Meanwhile, Americans will get used to more Government involvement in their lives, they will expect it and the dependency will grow. The inevitable march towards more aspects of socialism in our lives will continue.

The election of Obama won’t be change we can believe in, or the apocalypse. It will just be at least eight years of having Democrats in power and all the realities that come along with that.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Arch,

    Obviously, we don’t agree on much of anything – we’ve had some hot exchanges – but my hats off to you with this posting.

    I still sit well left of you, but I do believe that you’ve struck the right chord in your assessment of a probable Obama White House.

    As I’ve said in the past, I don’t look upon Obama, nor anyone else as the second coming or anything. But, an Obama presidency is not likely to be either as great as some seem to believe or hope nor as awful as others fear.

    If nothing else, after 8 years of Bush and the Reps., it’s our turn. You had to suffer 8 years of Clinton and prior to that we had to grin and bear not only Reagan’s two terms, but GHWBs 4 years as well. It’s just what goes around comes around, don’t you know?

    The tone of your piece seems to be one of resignation. I would suggest though, that unless Obama manages to put together 8 really great years, the pendulum will likely swing back your way, and if he manages to really fuck up, you guys might find yourselves back in the catbird seat in 2012. Who knows?

    B-tone

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Oh, and one other thing. McCain still might pull it off. A lot can happen between now and November. I’m not trying to mollify you, but simply make note of the still real possibility that McCain, as much as it pains me to consider, might well be our next president.

    B-Tone

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “Obama will be able to appoint his way to a strong left majority in the Supreme Court.”

    Are you really expecting most of the right-wingers on the Court to croak or retire over the next few years, Obnox?

    Oh, and B-Tone? I really don’t think Obnox is Archie posting under a pseudo-pseudonym. He’s way too level-headed!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Obnoxious,

    Thanks and a tip of my hat as well. Excellent article.

    I don’t yet think that Senator Obama has the Presidency sewn up, and am not even sure that he has the nomination completely sewn up. Things can happen between now and the convention, and if they do the choice will be even worse. The recent polls — despite Senator McCain’s gaffes and lack of luster — suggest that Senator McCain still has a better chance than a snowball in the hot place.

    Dan

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Woops! My mind is turning to lumpy gravy. Forget all the Arch thingys. Just think Obnox!

    Sorry

    Baron er I mean Baritone

  • STM

    So is the judiciary in the US appointed according to political leanings, and thus expected to make decisions based on that? What’s that about?

    Why aren’t they regarded as fiercely independent? I’m all for judges being appointed rather than elected, especially on merit, as I believe that election of the judiciary leads to ridiculous populist decisions and causes even more problems, but is it not accepted that they will make fair and valid judgments, political leanings or not?

    Surely the nod to that and an expectation of independence is what is good about the judiciary, even when the law’s an ass.

    And I’m with B-tone … if you want to live in a representative democracy, you take the good with the bad and the decisions of your fellow citizens on the chin.

    Isn’t that what’s kept us going (collectively) for the past 350 years since the time of the Glorious Revolution in England, and then more of the same good stuff in the American Revolution??

    Isn’t that what has shaped us and makes us different (all of us in the English-speaking nations, not just you guys)?

    We shouldn’t ever be arguing over the results of democratic votes by the people, even if we don’t like the result. It’s why we don’t have coups and military dictatorships.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    So is the judiciary in the US appointed according to political leanings, and thus expected to make decisions based on that? What’s that about?

    It’s all part of the intricate system of checks and balances, Stan. It’s a president’s way of making his influence felt long after his administration has bitten the dust. Once a justice is appointed, the job is his or hers for as long as he or she wants it – sometimes that’s for life, and one thing judges seem to have an extraordinary talent for is longevity. I have a suspicion that some of the old duffers in the current Supreme Court were appointed by Andrew Jackson…

    On the other hand, Congress can check the President’s choice of justice by disapproving of, or talking him out of, a nominee who is too politically unacceptable or, as in the case of Harriet Miers, completely unqualified for the job.

  • STM

    At least in the UK now, the Supreme Court is appointed by an independent judicial appointments committee, although I don’t know what the situation is with the privy councillors. Anything to do with the House of Lords has been a worry (especially considering they seemed to spend most of their time in the House sleeping), but didn’t Blair change it?

    We still have judges appointed here, and there have been some murmurs, although the general concencus is that while there has been the odd political appointment to the High Court, mostly it is done on merit. So they say …

    BTW, I saw a COPS episode on cable the other night and it was in Fresno. It looked like a big bush town, Doc, with dirt roads and what have you on the outskirts. So is it a proper small city Doc, or was I right – a big country town?

  • STM

    And if what I saw on TV is any guide, to echo another commentator on here, I really don’t know of anything that’s keeping you in the central valley :)

    Well, apart from the missus, obviously.

    Why is she so keen to stay in the US? Family?

    I still reckon you guys need to get on a plane and head on down to the sun-kissed paradise-by-the-sea. Americans are allowed to become citizens now as well.

    And you get half yer flag back Doc … you know the one, the corner of ours that you pinched and claimed as your own.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Hey Stan – I saw a movie the other day about a cute young aussie girl that’s locked up in Indonesia I think…it was called “Ganja Queen”. I was just wondering, are all you Aussies so potty mouthed? SOunded like a bunch of us yanks on the tube!!!

  • http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/39420/joanne_huspek.html Joanne Huspek

    Damn, Dude, that was some rant. Unfortunately, I’m afraid your predictions will all come true.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Of course each president afforded the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices during their terms in office attempt to choose from among those believed to be politically aligned with that president. Generally, at least over the last several years – at least until up to the GWB appointees – that hasn’t necessarily worked out as expected.

    Often SC judges have in fact proven to be quite independent in their respective decisions, often much to the chagrin of the president who nominated them.

    Currently, the court has a decided conservative balance. There are 2 justices who are like 130 years old or so, who will likely retire during the next presidential term, although there are no guarantees. There must be something about being a SC judge which seems to elongate their working lives. I suppose the necessity of keeping the cranial juices flowing have something to do with it. Few SC judges bite the dust early. I just hope the two oldsters on the court manage to hold on for the remainder of the year. If Obama wins the WH, then it will be his fortune to choose their replacements. Should McCain get the nod, his appointees would more than likely mirror Bush’s. Perish the thought!

    B-tone

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    BTW, I saw a COPS episode on cable the other night and it was in Fresno. It looked like a big bush town, Doc, with dirt roads and what have you on the outskirts. So is it a proper small city Doc, or was I right – a big country town?

    It has elements of both, Stan. ‘Downtown’ looks like a typical American small city and during the day it bustles and functions like one. At night, it empties completely and no-one but bums and baseball fans (there’s a spanking new stadium which it was hoped would revitalize the CBD) are to be found there.

    Urban sprawl has expanded Fresno to half the size of Greater London, although with far fewer people – hence the ‘bush’ appearance in some parts of the city. That’s steadily changing as the vacant tracts get homes, offices and strip malls built on them – those Cops episodes were I think filmed several years ago.

    That said, from downtown you can actually get into the countryside very quickly. The town grew up alongside the Union Pacific railroad – joined later by Highway 99, which runs parallel – and expanded to the north and east. To the south of the train tracks, it’s still all fields.

    Why is she so keen to stay in the US? Family?

    I still reckon you guys need to get on a plane and head on down to the sun-kissed paradise-by-the-sea. Americans are allowed to become citizens now as well.

    We’re reckoning on getting out of Fresno ASAP, Stan. Only two things are keeping us here right now: the missus needs to stay at her current job for another year so she can get vested and take her employer’s retirement contributions with her when she leaves; and we need to get our condo into a fit state to be rented out.

    Family’s not a big issue as she and her parents squabble constantly, one sister has already moved away and the other wants to.

    I did have a look at the Australian immigration website and was quite staggered at the list of trades and occupations which the country is supposedly desirous of. I think it would have been easier to make a list of the professions Australia doesn’t need…

  • The Obnoxious American

    Are you really expecting most of the right-wingers on the Court to croak or retire over the next few years, Obnox?

    Doc,

    Given the last few important supreme court decisions, decided by 1 vote each, it only takes one to croak my friend. Not that this is a huge concern of mine personally. The Keller decision should make any revisit of the 2nd ammendment moot as it should now fall into the “settled” law category. I couldn’t care less about Gay marriage and I’m not so concerned about abortion rights. But that’s just me. The experience does show just how important these elections are in terms of our rights.

    I’ve said this before, but it is interesting how the GOP supports gun rights, but is against the right to abort or marry if you are gay. A bit of an inconsistency of the main platform, but I suppose that is the price you pay to own the morals vote. Thing is I don’t think the morals vote is worth a damn in 2008.

    Another point, I thought McCain’s speech in front of the NAACP yesterday was nothing short of brilliant. Who would have thought that McCain would garner a standing ovation at the NAACP with Obama as his opponent. Perhaps this is a result of McCain’s staff changes, and if so it is a welcome change.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    A “brief” standing ovation, according to USA Today, in contrast to “the thunderous enthusiasm that had greeted Obama”.

    I didn’t see the speech, but I gather that his reception was warm and polite and that his audience was, by and large, appreciative that he’d taken the time and trouble to stop by and share his plans with them. But it doesn’t seem as though he’ll be changing many hearts and minds in that demographic.

    And yes, SCOTUS is split down the middle at the moment. Four justices will pretty much always go one way, and four will go the other. They seem happy enough to do that and subsequently be rude to each other in their written opinions.

    I believe Kennedy has been the swing vote in all the recent landmark decisions.

    Stevens and Ginsburg – both liberals – are the oldest justices and probably the most likely to retire or pop their clogs in the immediate future. Obama would appoint liberals to replace them, McCain would plump for conservatives. So the overall balance of power probably won’t be changing in favor of the left any time soon.

  • Ruvy

    I know I’m late to the party, but other things have been going on that do not have to do with this magazine.

    Anyway, you’ve put out a workmanlike article with which I have one quibble.

    It runs like this: you talk about a lot of us wanting to believe in a higher power, and then observe or lament that the president is not a god.

    That Higher Power is not some dipshit politician, but G-d Himself. If you really understood the Jewish heritage you are heir to, you would understand that with crystal clarity.

    As for your prognostications, I think Obama will win in the vote, both the popular vote and the electoral one. Going beyond that with the American election, I will not do. Too much is in the air at the moment.

    Love and kisses from the mountains of Samaria,
    Ruvy

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    One should remember that there are those who neither believe in or pine for any higher power, other than, of course, the Federation of Planets.

    B-tone

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Or The Schwartz.

  • Baronius

    Obnox – I think you missed one very important issue, relations with Iran. Obama is far more likely to get the US into a war (or at least some regionalized conflict) than McCain.

    McCain will probably keep our mideast policy the same. He’ll shut down Guantanamo and gradually bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda will keep losing. McCain will avoid war with Iran.

    Obama is more likely to have an erratic foreign policy. He’ll be torn by his advisors: moveon peaceniks, Clinton-era interventionists, establishment internationalists, the cautious and the radical. He’ll be so preoccupied with not erring that he’ll overreact to something. Consistent foreign policy is the best thing; second-best is absolutely psychotic foreign policy that scares your neighbors. The most dangerous foreign policy is inconsistent.

    Also, Obnox, I don’t see Obama or McCain lasting more than one term. We’ve gone through a recent stretch of two-termers, but that’s uncommon. Certainly, with the country so evenly divided, there’s no reason to assume that this election will set the tone for 16 years. (Has there ever been a two-termer whose VP went on to be a two-term president?)

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Eisenhower-Nixon, but I think you mean consecutively, so no.

  • Baronius

    Yeah, Bicho, it’s a tough move. Not many VP’s become president, except the unfortunate way. I don’t know why we assume that a president will make it eight years, much less extend his influence two terms beyond his presidency.

    I can’t imagine a President McCain running for a second term. He doesn’t want to be President; he just wants to be elected President. He wants to get the job that Bush “stole” from him. A President Obama would still be youthful during a second term, but his possible VP’s? Clinton, Richardson, and Webb would all be bumping up against 70 by the end of a second Obama term.

  • Steel

    An excellent piece. I think the actual threat to America and the move toward a more socialist system will come from a Democrat controlled Congress moreso than a president Obama. The problem is that those who believe at this moment in time this will be a good thing won’t recognize it’s not a good thing to trend toward more socialism until it is too late. That realization will occur when the rich can’t be soaked for any more and the taxes of everyone begin to rocket skyward.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Baron,

    You underestimate Obama and his ability to think for himself. He will effectively shut out the crazies. I don’t see him pandering to please every Tom, Dick, and Hillary when it comes to Iran or anything for that matter. Obama is no more (nor less) guilty of that than any politician. You presume far too little of Obama.
    Barack is not the one singing “Bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran” or making similar stupid remarks that reveal McCain’s basic lack of depth. A public figure seeking the highest office in the land should not be saying such things, even in jest. It borders on a gutteral level of human disregard.

    And you’re right. McCain doesn’t really want to BE president. He just wants to win it. And perhaps he likes the IDEA of it. It’s rather like teenage girls who pine for having babies, thinking how great it will be to cuddle some helpless little doll like creature without a thought to the fact that that little “doll” will eat and cry and poop and get sick, and will quickly be wreaking havoc on her life.

    B-tone

  • bliffle

    Wake up Steel. We already have socialism – socialism for the rich and powerful. It’s only the consumers and workers who have only token socialism, who must endure the slings and arrows of brass-knuckles capitalism.

    Bear Stearns starts to go belly-up as a result of the predatory mistakes of it’s overpaid execs and the Bush administration snaps to attention and coppers a $30billion bailout. FNMA starts to take on water as a result of the machinations of it’s overpaid execs and once again the Bush administration snaps to attention.

    But if 2 million american homeowners go bankrupt and lose their houses No Mercy For Them!

    Hard-nosed make-or-break capitalism for the least powerful people in the country. A severe lecture about irresponsibility and risk taking when they fail.

    Corporate welfare for the most powerful – who happen to be the biggest campaign contributors to Bush/Cheney.

    We have socialism already: selective socialism.

  • Baronius

    I do have a very low opinion of Obama. We’ll see if I’m underestimating him.

    He’d never joke about bombing Iran. He’ll be against military action six months before he orders it. But he’ll paint himself into a corner and realize it too late. He’s also petulant enough that he’ll find himself wanting to go to war, because Iran or the international community isn’t respecting him enough. (If you think crazy invading America isn’t respected, wait till you see the international reaction to wussy retreating America.)

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Boy, Bar, you’ve sure got that Obama guy figured out. It’s amazing that you have such intimate knowledge of the man, or are you just prescient?

    It’s almost exclusively a right wing American trait to suspect, and even despise those who display any eloquence or literacy and tab them “elitists,” in favor of lesser minds of the GWB ilk who take pride in their ignorance and wear it like a badge of honor.

    That Obama has obvious eloquence and literacy, he is, without any consideration of his race, considered to be an elitist and presumed consequently to have no balls. Even Obnox does not look upon Obama quite as dimly as you do.

    B-tone

  • Baronius

    Bar, there may be some Republicans like that, but that’s not where I’m coming from. I like brains. I’ve never had them personally, but I’ve seen other people use them and they look like fun. But I don’t see any signs that Obama is clever or curious. His positions are pretty much exactly what I’d expect from a Democrat who wasn’t awfully intellectual. (No offense to Dems – there is a set of positions that the casual, even dim Republican would likely fall into.)

    OK, there’s one exception that I can think of. Some of his statements about the recent Supreme Court decisions indicate independent thought.

  • STM

    Andy,

    Schapelle Corby, a hairdresser from the Gold Coast. She got busted with a big whack of pot in her boogie board bag at Denpasar airport, and claimed she never put it there and didn’t know how it came to be there. The country is split about 50-50 as to whether she’s guilty or innocent, but the bottom line is, that doesn’t mean diddly because the average Australian had no input into the trial in Indonesia.

    What Aussies are angry about is that there is an element of doubt, and had she gone to trial in Australia, it’s quite likely that her guilt wouldn’t have been established beyond reasonable doubt (aren’t we lucky that we live in countries with this legal system).

    There is also the small matter of the time the Indonesians gave her: 20 years in stinking Kerobokan Jail for a bag of grass that might not have been hers. Had she been busted here, tried and found guilty, she might have got five years’ maximum and been out in two, especially if she’d been held in custody during the trial as they take into account time served.

    Aussie jails are also quite humane places (especially compared to US jails if we’re comparing western type incarceration), where the emphasis is on care in custody and rehabilitation, because the system considers that deprivation of liberty is the whole of the punishment, and that beyond that people have no need to be further punished unless of course they play up. Of course, being a former convict colony might have something to do with that attitude.

    And compared to Bali, they’re like the Sheraton, so it’s a bizarre tale all round.

    The family ARE a bit “unusual” though, which is the best way to put it.

    And Doc, you’d walk in down here with your background in counselling/social work. They are desperate for people like you.

    Don’t know why … this place seems to be run by social workers sometimes :)

  • The Obnoxious American

    Baronius,

    You are forgetting most people are lazy and will vote for the guy who already has the job and hasn’t blown up the earth. Don’t forget that the recent trend of 2 time presidents coincides with wide adoption of TV and lazy lifestyles.

    Moreover, I believe Obama’s VP will get elected for a few reasons. Obama will have a legacy just like JFK.

    This recession is perfectly timed for the next president to come in and save the day, even if we all know that’s not how the economic system works.

    The war in Iraq is perfectly timed for the next president to come in and save the day, even if we know that McCain’s surge (and the sacrifice of our military) deserve credit for the major change in the situation there.

    Afghanistan? Pheh! We will take care of business there again just like we did a few years back. The idea that we have to choose between Iraq and Afghanistan is a false choice. Either way, this too will be sorted out by spring, just in time for the next president to take credit.

    In terms of Iran, the international community isn’t serious about ensuring Iran does not have nukes. That means either Israel bombs Iran, which would scare people away from McCain, or Iran attains nukes, which would favor Obama with his fancy diplomacy. And now with Bush sending an envoy, which is not the same as “direct talks” between Ahmadinejad and Bush (or Obama), it still sends a message that Obama was somehow right.

    With all of this going in the right direction for Obama, and with McCain seemingly sidelined by his campaign, Obama will attain an amazing legacy, like it or not. Obama will be the next JFK. After 8 years of bliss (right around the time for the NEXT recession to rear it’s ugly head) people will make the safe choice and put Obama’s heir apparent in the Oval Office. I can’t tell the future and I could be wrong about this, but it’s really not so far fetched.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Also, after 8 years of a slow progression of left wing programs, I think the GOP position will appear foreign to most people.

    Bliffle,

    All those rich Americans who live on “selective socialism” – I’m sure they didn’t do anything to earn their money right? It’s selected because they all have some back room deal with someone connected to Cheney? Someone slept in their aluminum foil hat.

    B-Tone,

    “It’s almost exclusively a right wing American trait to suspect, and even despise those who display any eloquence or literacy and tab them “elitists,” in favor of lesser minds of the GWB ilk who take pride in their ignorance and wear it like a badge of honor.”

    I actually think quite the opposite is true. Think about this for a second. The left consistently tries to project itself as the smarter of the two parties. Yet in their infinite wisdom, they choose Barack Obama, a man with very little experience and a sole claim of judgement, and he’s also pretty charismatic.

    But this is a man who has no clear platform, preaches a generalized message on change with not much else. A politician who obviously has spent so little time on the issues that he is just now starting to realize where his beliefs are (or he has no real beliefs). You can say I am just not familiar with his platforms, but his recent positions prove that no one is really familiar with his platform no matter how much we read his web site or watch his speeches.

    But the left doesn’t care. They love this guy. He can approve of a fisa bill that gives telecom a pass (which I totally agree with) switch positions on Iraq, and support the 2nd ammendment, but this is a new kind of politics right?

    By contrast, the right looks at their candidates with a skeptical eye. They aren’t easily wowed by an inspirational speech, glitzy friends and a cheesy fist bump. Up until recently, the right’s whole beef with Obama has been his left wing platform, perhaps not so much anymore.

    You’d think that the left would at least consider the platform when choosing a guy for the job of president. Instead all they want is a generic vessel for them to place their own hopes and aspirations in. Navel gazing at it’s worst, and on such a large scale. And it’s the right that is anti-elitist? Perhaps the right is merely anti-bs.

  • The Obnoxious American

    can no one refute my bullet proof logic here?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Sweeping generalizations do not bulletproof logic make, Obnox.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Doc,

    As I was responding to B-Tone’s sweeping generalizations about the right and their apparent lack of intellect, with a specific example of where the left has thrown out any measure of intellect in favor of emotion with regards to their choice for candidate, I find it difficult how you can suggest I am generalizing.

    Is supporting Obama by any means necessary by and large by the leftist elite regardless of views not specific enough? Certainly more specific than the charges thrown about by Btone regarding the right.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Obnox, unless you personally asked every primary and caucus voter, or at least a reasonable sample of them, why they voted for Barack Obama (and remember that a significant minority didn’t), your charge remains a generalization. I’m not saying that your argument doesn’t have merit, just that it’s not bulletproof as you claim.

    As for the ‘left’ now supporting Obama come hell or high water, well, he’s the candidate-elect now. Every Democrat who sincerely wants a Democrat in the White House will be supporting him. That’s the nature of the electoral process in this country. We’ve seen for ourselves that many Republican voters have serious misgivings about McCain too, but will be voting for him in November because a GOP president – any GOP president – is better to their minds than the alternative.

  • Baronius

    Obnox – Good call on the “elitist” thing. That word triggers a lot of emotions on this site.

    All political factions think of themselves as the bright ones. In the pre Christian Coalition years, we Republicans were happy to look down on people. Our foreign policy was Machiavellian, unlike the stupid hippies. Our domestic policy was brilliant: we understood that lowering tax rates could increase tax revenue, even if we couldn’t figure out how to explain it to the lowly masses. This was the party of Dave Nalle.

    But then we became Christian and humble. We stopped bragging and became palatable to the voter. We gave in to the natural human instinct to drive cars really fast in a circle. Of course, then our leaders in the House and Senate become aristocratic power snobs that even we don’t want in office.

    Sigh. Politics was so much easier when *we* were the conceited party.

  • Baronius

    Baritone, I’m not the only one who’s noticed Obama’s high self-image. It was the subject of Charles Krauthammer’s column on Friday. I’m sure it would be a copyright violation to cut and paste the whole article, so I’ll only steal one line, that Obama’s only significant output has been a biography of his favorite subject, himself.