|
He's just elaborating his position - and his position is pretty mainstream liberal.
He supports the right to bear arms but wants gun control. That's a pretty mainstream liberal position. In fact that's a pretty mainstream position. You think the majority of the electorate would support getting rid of guns completely? Fuck no. People want guns, but also regulations. Obama's dead right on this issue.
He said he would go to Iraq and 'continue to refine' his policy based on the new information he learns. Of course he's going to continue to refine his approach, we've had a President who steers the ship of state in the same direction regardless of new information he gets. Don't we want a President who listens to information and adjusts his course based on what he's learned? Guess what, folks, you're getting played if you think that 'refine' means 'I'm not pulling out of Iraq'. It means that his method of pulling out is going to change. The goal of withdrawal is not going to change. And you're also getting played if you think that we're going to be able to pull out of Iraq immediately. Sixteen months is what Obama's plan is and always has been.
And then how about those faith-based initiatives? Is the Democratic party suddenly embracing theocratic social services? I've got some news for you, people. Barack Obama is a Christian, and the vast majority of people in the United States are. Churches have the means to provide social services, if they are funded by the government we will be able to get more people fed, clothed, and taken care of! Anyone who disagrees with that is too ideologically driven to recognize that religious communities in many cases are better able to provide social services than a welfare check. All politics is local, people. And so what if they're religiously based? What's worse, religious people giving social services, or people starving? Are we as a progressive movement too hateful towards Christians that we won't let them help out in the effort to bring our nation out of poverty?
Let's talk about FISA next. If I have nothing to hide, why would the government track me? If the government thinks people are terrorists, let them wiretap their phone lines! Let's completely discard the notion that we're moving into a fascist state, because WE ARE NOT. George Bush will be out of office in six months. SIX MONTHS. Dictators don't have term limits. We have immense corruption. We do not have fascism. And that is why I am not worried about FISA. These telecom corporations were told that what they were doing was legal, and that they had to help the government. Is it really right to punish them after the fact here?
About late-term abortions, yeah, I don't think that "mental stress" should be a reason to have a late-term abortion. That's a pretty mainstream view. That's not a right-wing view. That's pretty regular.
I don't agree with Barack Obama on everything, I don't necessarily agree wholeheartedly with telecom immunity but I understand Obama's reasons for doing so. I lean more towards gun control than lack of gun control. What I do understand is this - if Obama's firm stance on moderate-liberal positions is misconstrued as him becoming a centrist, than so be it. We all know what he stands for and what he will do when he's President. This corrupt era in American politics will be over and for once America's gonna get to work and be a good leader in the world, not a destructive force. But the only way this is going to happen is if Obama continues to listen to both the mainstream and the progressives. We need Republicans. We need to listen to them. Some have good ideas. We need independents. They're going to decide this election. If we tear Obama up for throwing a line out to them, we're going to make him look hypocritical. We might even drag him back to the far-left box in which so many good Democratic candidates have found themselves in over the past few elections causing them to lose disastrously.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(138 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
