2008 Woodie Awards
Is Obama really an agent of change?
Stephen Flynn
Issue date: 1/18/08 Section: Opinions & Editorials
Whenever I ask somebody here at Lawrence who they are supporting in the primaries, the answer is almost always Barack Obama:
"I like the way he talks."
"He will bring change to Washington."
"He's a uniter."
I think most of Obama's supporters know little about his record as Senator and are swayed primarily by his rhetorical skills. Is he really the candidate of "Change"?
If you define change as having a "D" next to your name instead of an "R" then Obama will bring change to the White House, but Obama's election is unlikely to be a meaningful departure from the last 20 years of Bush and Clinton.
One thing you hear very often from the Obama campaign is that he will "bring the country together" and "break out of the old arguments." During George W. Bush's 2000 campaign, however, the former governor touted his record of bipartisan cooperation with the Democrats in the Texas Legislature. "I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect," he said at his Republican nomination speech, and yet partisan divide in our nation's capital remains as divisive as it was during the election of 1800.
The truth is that Obama's record in the Senate is that of a rank and file Democrat because he always votes down the party line. He gets either highly favorable or highly unfavorable ratings from ideological lobbies.
For example, he was rated zero percent by the National Right to Life Committee, rated 100 percent by Citizens for Tax Justice (they want to repeal the Bush tax cuts), eight percent by the U.S. Border Control and 100 percent by the NAACP for his affirmative action stance.
Can we honestly believe that with such a polarizing record he could compromise with the Republicans?
When Obama talks about change, does he mean ending the highly destructive war on drugs? Obama hasn't said anything about reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I, a category that defines the popular college drug as more dangerous and less medically useful than crystal meth.
"I like the way he talks."
"He will bring change to Washington."
"He's a uniter."
I think most of Obama's supporters know little about his record as Senator and are swayed primarily by his rhetorical skills. Is he really the candidate of "Change"?
If you define change as having a "D" next to your name instead of an "R" then Obama will bring change to the White House, but Obama's election is unlikely to be a meaningful departure from the last 20 years of Bush and Clinton.
One thing you hear very often from the Obama campaign is that he will "bring the country together" and "break out of the old arguments." During George W. Bush's 2000 campaign, however, the former governor touted his record of bipartisan cooperation with the Democrats in the Texas Legislature. "I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect," he said at his Republican nomination speech, and yet partisan divide in our nation's capital remains as divisive as it was during the election of 1800.
The truth is that Obama's record in the Senate is that of a rank and file Democrat because he always votes down the party line. He gets either highly favorable or highly unfavorable ratings from ideological lobbies.
For example, he was rated zero percent by the National Right to Life Committee, rated 100 percent by Citizens for Tax Justice (they want to repeal the Bush tax cuts), eight percent by the U.S. Border Control and 100 percent by the NAACP for his affirmative action stance.
Can we honestly believe that with such a polarizing record he could compromise with the Republicans?
When Obama talks about change, does he mean ending the highly destructive war on drugs? Obama hasn't said anything about reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I, a category that defines the popular college drug as more dangerous and less medically useful than crystal meth.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Joanna
posted 1/22/08 @ 3:21 PM CST
A fair enough article with substantive facts to back up the assertion that 'change' must be more than just a rallying cry.
The word actually has meaning that must be proven with actions. (Continued…)
Post a Comment