Steve Kroll

In a previous post, I asked readers "Why do you support Barack Obama? ". One of the bloggers I cited as supporting Obama, Mike Thomas , kindly took the time to answer my question. I will list different parts of his argument and offer my opinion throughout the post.

Switching to Hillary

Mr. Thomas started out his response by describing himself as a presumptive Hillary Voter because he felt, while Obama was a great choice, he seemed to be too new to the process to take on the Clinton machine. He gradually started to see a change taking place and Hillary was slowly letting the nomination slip through her fingers. It was shortly before the Texas and Ohio primaries that the tide had seemed to turn and it seemed much more practical to support Obama, seeing how Hillary had an insurmountable delegate count to overcome. After this explanation of how he became an Obama supporter, he started to explain why he supported Obama.

Obama Qualifications

"While he is relatively young - 46 - he has more than enough experience and qualifications to be president. Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where he also held the prestigious position as editor of the Harvard Law Review and then went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago for several years."

Alright, so Obama is an Ivy League grad who, admittedly, was an excellent scholar. It’s a bit of a stretch, however, that being an editor of a student-run journal and teaching @ a prestigious university is a presidential qualification. I’ll agree this shows he is a disciplined student, able to manage a team of diverse individuals, and qualified to teach.

Obama’s "Bi-Partisan Record"

"Throughout his poltical career, Obama has demonstrated a desire to reach bi-partisan agreements and work constructively with his political opponents. His legislation to reform ethics and health care laws in Illinois gained broad bipartisan support."

Alright, before I examine just how "bi-partisan" Obama is, I want to acknowledge a few things. First, he did vote on legislation to expand the state’s KidCare and FamilyCare health insurance programs and reform ethics in Illinois. There is a bit of hypocrisy on his part though. Specifically, Obama in February of 2004, spent $17,191 in state taxpayer money on a mailer that had the look and feel of a campaign flier promoting his run for the U.S. Senate.

The mailing went out just days before a new ban on the pre-election dissemination of such state-paid constituent newsletters went into effect, part of a package of ethics reforms that Obama takes credit for getting passed (via Chicago Tribune ).

If Obama felt these mailings were irresponsible and touted them, then why did he still use them? Seems like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one.

And in the U.S. Senate he has worked with Republicans like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Lugar of Indiana to pass bipartisan legislation. Obama is far from being the extreme left partisan caricature portrayed by right-wing radio and web sites.

Since becoming a U.S. Senator in 2005, Obama has voted consistently on all of his 122 pieces of legislation with his party while working with Republicans only on certain high-profile issues.

The bill he worked on with Lugar was to destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional armaments and to cooperate with allies and international organizations when possible. This was a no-brainer bill that 78 senators agreed with. Liberal senators Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, in fact, every single Democrat voted for it (via Senate.Gov ). Does that mean they are "bi-partisan" just because they signed a bill that most Republicans agreed with also? No, it means that the bill wasn’t partisan in nature.

The bill with Tom Coburn was to "create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans"(via Obama.Senate.Gov ). This is hardly a partisan bill and received almost unanimous support from both Republicans and Democrats.

Off-Topic Republican Bashing

"While I’m not supposed to veer off into bashing Republicans, I have to stop here and say one of the key differences between the parties today that drives my voting decisions is my perception that Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, truly believe in and support good government. By “good government” I mean the kind of government that is beneficial to the people and accomplishes its goals in an efficient and cost-effective manner."

Alright, so what specifically is good government that "…is beneficial to the people and accomplishes its goals in an efficient and cost-effective manner?" While this sounds good, it is very vague in it’s meaning. National Healthcare? Tax-cuts? No more filibustering? Uphold Roe v. Wade? I wonder how he thinks Obama specifically will do this.

"Republicans long ago were co-opted by a radical faction that believes that every government program is bad, government is always the problem and never the answer and that privatization is the ultimate answer to everything. So they practice what I call “bad government” and intentionally try to block, deter, ignore, starve or otherwise gum up government programs just to prove that they don’t work."

Mike, I don’t know how many Republican congressman are on record as saying every government program is bad. I do agree though that many government programs, while well intended, usually end up having their funding siphoned towards unrelated social programs. As for privatization being the answer not government, I absolutely agree with that. Look at ethanol as an example.

Ethanol is an inferior fuel that nobody wanted to put into their gas tanks on their own. So instead of letting the free market determine if bio-fuel was the answer, the government mandated it, heavily subsidized it, and forced oil companies to blend it with their gasoline. As a result, 25% of our corn in 2007-2008 is being used for ethanol. There are now food shortages across the world because instead of farmers in the U.S. planting their traditional crops: corn one year, soy or a different crop the next, farmers are planting corn, corn, corn because of the government subsidies. As a result, there is a shortage in many crops such as soy and rice. That means the price of these crops goes up, starving many people throughout the world. Don’t believe me? Go to your grocery store and buy vegetable oil. You will be shocked by how much more expensive it is. I blame President Bush and most congressman in the Midwest who are too scared to say how crappy ethanol is because of the backlash from the farming community.

This is just one example of where government is a bad thing. Time and time again, we see the private sector figure it out because they allow the free-market to decide what is best for us. The Toyota Prius is a perfect example of this. Toyota sought to make the Prius because they knew that gas-efficiency and being green would be a big selling point. People are buying the Prius in record numbers because they know it is a good quality vehicle that saves them money. Free Market Solution . No government mandate required.

The reason some Republicans (I say some because many are Democrat-Lite on the issues) block many government programs is because they are an undue tax burden to their constituency. Many of the measures they block are those that seek to provide a solution without really researching the potential repercussions, not because they want to say "Ha, see, government programs don’t work!".

Back To Obama: Skilled Orator and Change Maker

"We need a leader who actually believes in our country, supports it and thinks that it can work. Someone who will put good government people into top positions, as opposed to right-wing anti-government ideologues, and help turn around some of the long neglected programs that this country needs to function more effectively and more efficiently."

Once again, Mike is very vague. "Good government people into top positions". What exactly does he mean by that. Who are "good government people?" What specific types of programs are neglected and how will this streamline our country and make it more efficient?

"I believe Barack Obama will do just that. A gifted speaker and communicator, he has an inate ability to gain people’s trust and find compromises that most people are willing to support.

As someone who will support and defend long established and proven programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Obama is the true “conservative” in the race."

So many things to talk about here. Being a gifted speaker and communicator and having the ability to gain people’s trust will "help turn around some of the long neglected programs that this country needs to function more effectively and more efficiently" how? Also, his support of Social Security, Medicare,and Aid to families with Dependent Children shows he’s conservative? In addition, is he fine with the social security system we have in place currently (soon to be bankrupt) or does he seek to reform or privatize it? I don’t really know.

The claim that Obama is the true conservative is simply false. On most of the staple positions that conservatives hold, Obama is on the opposite side of the spectrum. He is pro-choice (even late-term abortions), anti tax cuts (except for those making less than$75k), who knows what he believes about NAFTA, pro union, against drilling domestic oil, extremely anti gun-rights, for some form of national healthcare, for gay marriage, and favors activist judges. Doesn’t sound very conservative to me.

Global Warming

"Obama’s position on global warming is in line with sound scientific studies and the conclusions of the vast majority of the scientific community, not based on a radical ideology that rejects science out of hand whenever it does not agree with predetermined conclusions."

When Mike says "vast majority of the scientific community", I would like to know how he comes to that conclusion. Also, even if there is global warming, what strong evidence is there that shows it is man made? Phil Chapman, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist, NASA’s first Australian-born astronaut and Apollo 14’s mission scientist has this to say:

"This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003."

Also, In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works minority-staff report, about 400 scientists declared their independence from the pro-warming "conventional wisdom."

The above ideology does not reject science, but rather uses it to describe a cooling trend that is taking place world-wide. With the scientific community so divided, how can it be said that the majority of the scientific community agrees with global warming?

Mike’s Finale

"I could go on with a long list of programs and policies that Obama supports and with which I agree, but suffice it to say that I support Obama because he is not an ideologue and because he supports and practices good government principles. That means that even if he puts in place a program or policy that I disagree with, I trust that he would abandon it or change it if it proves not to work, rather than stubbornly supporting it just because it meshes with his ideology."

What long list of programs and policies does Mike agree with Obama on? I went through his response and I found these specific programs and policies verbetum: appointing "good" government officials, man made global warming position, support Social security, Support Medicaid, two specific pieces of bi-partisan legislation, …. I think that’s all I could find pertaining to specific programs or policies of Barack Obama.

Also, trusting that Obama will abandon or change his stance on a policy that is wholly unpopular with the American people is a very optimistic opinion. Mike stated Obama is about good government principles numerous times, using that as a bullet point for supporting him.

My Analysis

I am glad that Mike took the time to respond to my question. I really give him credit for giving me a well thought out answer that incorporated some of Barack Obama’s previous experience and stances on the issues.

With that said, I feel that much of his response was based on feelings, general platitudes, and the promise of what the future brings rather than specific credentials.

Some key issues I feel Mike didn’t speak about were Obama’s stance on judicial appointments, foreign policy, NAFTA, liberal voting record in the Illinois State Senate, specific plans on Iraq and Obama’s mere 2 years of experience in the U.S. Senate.

I encourage bloggers from all ends of the spectrum to engage in discussion respectfully and focus on issues. It only does harm to individuals if they are a closed book, not willing to hear the other side’s opinions.

While I disagree with Mike’s reasons for supporting Barack, I thank him for taking some time to have a discussion with me.

So what does everyone think? Was grade would you give Mike’s Response? How about my analysis?

p.s.

Mike referenced my age on his blog and how it could affect his answer:

"But one of the challenges will be trying to craft an answer that can bridge the generation gap between us. My youthful challenger lists his age on his blog as 20. My goodness!"

I don’t see how my age could have anything to do with his response to why he supports Barack obama. I would like to know what generational policies and issues I wouldn’t have understood that he left out of his response. While Mike feels that I might just be a naiive youngster bound to change my views, I can assure him that my stances on issues are timeless, in line with William Buckley, Mark Levin, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson.