Obama's Hope, Change and Other Weasel Words: The Politics of Usual
"Hope." "Change." "A new kind of politics." Barack Obama's promise to implement these ideals has led him top of the Democratic pack, as millions of Americans have contributed to his highly successful campaign. And who can blame Americans for jumping on board? On the surface, a platform that promises the invoke hope and change is surely enticing -- especially after eight years of political and social turbulence. But, what do "hope" and "change" actually mean? If actions count for anything, Obama's promise to ignite a "new kind of politics" is laughable at best. So, why are the American people missing all of the cues? From race relations to the federal tax system, Obama continues to prove that his policies and allegiances possess the characteristics of nothing more than typical, run-of-the-mill political fodder. He's no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops. Judicial Watch reports the following:
"While Barack Obama campaigns as an anomaly not corrupted by Washington politics or special interests, he has repeatedly contradicted this illusion by accepting big bucks from convicted entrepreneurs as well as oil company executives, steering millions of federal earmark dollars to his wife’s employer and a top donor and hiring powerful corporate insiders to run his campaign."
When we talk about proposed tax systems, Obama fares not much better than McCain. According to the Brooking Institution and the Urban Instutite, McCain's plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from over a 10 year period, while Obama's plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion during the same time frame.
And what about a more general sense of fiscal discipline? The sad reality is that neither of the candidates' proposals would balance the U.S. budget:
"The left-leaning Tax Policy Center concludes: "Obama's generosity comes at a price. ... He'd raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade, and that includes more than $900 billion in promised revenue raisers that TPC could not verify."
Obama's spending plans for health care, infrastructure, education and energy aren't even included in TPC's estimate. With Social Security and Medicare in grave danger, allowing our officials to manage a health care system in the current political climate is frightening at best.
But his hypocrisy transcends these issues and extends into nearly every facet of his campaign. Last week, he went back on his word and announced that he would be forgoing more the $85 million in public financing -- a move that has McCain and many others (even Obama supporters) frustrated and disheartened. So much for bi-partisan negotiations. According to OpenSecrets:
"Last March, before Obama became the candidate to beat in the money race, his campaign said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" if he were to win his party's nomination."
And while I'm at it, allow me to mention his insane endorsement of ethanol as a viable fuel alternative. I can't imagine that he has missed the media's coverage of the destruction that has been caused by the utilization of ethanol. Damaging the world's fuel supply and potentially worsening the alleged global warming phenomenon apparently doesn't matter to Obama. Judicial Watch reports the following:
"It turns out that Obama’s national campaign co-chairman, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and his top advisor on environmental issues, Jason Grumet, used to work for a bipartisan initiative (National Commission on Energy Policy) that strongly supports ethanol…Obama is also very tight with Illinois agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland, the nation’s largest ethanol producer…"
I suppose forgetting to mention Rev. Wright would be irresponsible of me. See, Obama attended the same church for years. He listened to anti-American and anti-white statements and seemed completely content with his pastor's rants -- that is, until his church membership hurt his campaign. It was not until pressures mounted that Obama formerly removed his allegiances to Wright and company.
Are we supposed to believe that Obama was never happy at his church -- that he always differed ideologically from Rev. Wright? Believing such an idea would be nonsensical. No one stays at a church if they disagree with the leading pastor. And if by some chance Obama did stay despite some difference in opinion he surely wouldn't have allowed his pastor to marry he and his wife or baptize his children. And wasn’t Wright an inspiration for one of his books? Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely -- he just can't admit that to the American people.
Perhaps Judicial Watch said it best: "Somehow, the charismatic young lawmaker that the mainstream media loves to portray as a sort of rock star doesn’t seem any different than most Washington heavy hitters."