June 4, 2008

Why this young woman is not voting for Obama

Posted in obama, politics tagged , , , , at 8:58 pm by ccagirl

Now that Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, it seems everyone under the age of 30 is giddy with anticipation to elect him president in November.

Not me.

I admit, at first, when we didn’t know anything about Barack Obama other than that he gave a damn good speech, I was tempted. He had charisma and a way of bringing people together that might trump any disagreements on policy I would have. After all, the president is, among other things, the image of America to the world. What could be more exciting than a young, black, well-spoken and charismatic American president?

Then the details started coming out. Little by little I realized that the most horrifying thing to happen to this country would be if this man were elected president.

Not because he’s black. Not because he’s a Democrat. But because he’s a totalitarian socialist. Someone whose purpose is to subsume our free and democratic society into one which depends upon and is submissive to the almighty State. Someone who views the American Dream as the epitome of evil, and those who would dare defend it as nothing more than victims to be exploited.

Hyperbole! Demagoguery! The cries ring out from the left.

Well, don’t take my word for it. Take his:

Obama on healthcare

In true socialist form, the problem, according to Obama, is lack of federal regulation and government involvement. First of all, federal regulation to the level he wants – including creating government “watchdog groups” to oversee private insurers and tell them where and how to spend their money – doesn’t work. It creates bureaucratic inefficiency and higher costs as the bureaucracy becomes a sinkhole.

Second of all, for those who think socialized medicine or national healthcare is the holy grail, it doesn’t work. This study by Michael Tanner, director of health & welfare studies at the Cato Institute, examines socialized medicine systems in other countries, including Great Britain, France, Canada, and others.

His summary:

A closer look at countries with national health care systems shows that those countries have serious problems of their own, including rising costs, rationing of care, lack of access to modern medical technology, and poor health outcomes. Countries whose national health systems avoid the worst of these problems are successful precisely because they incorporate market mechanisms and reject centralized government control. In other words, socialized medicine works—as long as it isn’t socialized medicine.

That’s the key – “reject centralized government control”. Obama’s “National Health Care Exchange” is precisely that – centralized government control and a prescription for failure.

Obama on education

His answer: spend more money. On everything. The problem with No Child Left Behind? It isn’t “fully funded”. Not that he bothers to explain why it isn’t, or what the definition of “fully funded” is.

If Obama really wants to reform education, he should be focusing on giving states the tools to expand options for parents: charter schools and vouchers. When parents have a choice, the schools are forced to say to themselves, “Why aren’t they choosing my school? How can we make this school better?”

But that would force him to acknowledge that a free-market system actually works. Of course, that would also require giving parents the money the government would otherwise spend on expensive bureaucracy, rather than on their child’s education. And the last thing he wants is for any of that money to actually go to the people. Because they, of course, can’t be trusted to know what is best for themselves and their children.

Obama and judges

The next president will have the opportunity to appoint hundreds of lower-court judges and probably at least two Supreme Court justices. Obama will use this power to twist the role of the judiciary into activism and thought-policing.

Let me give you a little contrast. Here is the oath that all judges in the United States take (emphasis mine):

“I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Here’s what Obama said on the occasion of Justice Roberts’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:

[W]hat matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

And on the confirmation of Justice Alito:

But when you look at his record – when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American’s individual rights.

Obviously, Obama doesn’t want judges to do “equal justice to the poor and to the rich” – he wants them to side with the poor, with the individual, no matter what the facts of the case are. Justice is supposed to be blind. Justice is not supposed to be swayed by emotion or empathy for the downtrodden. Justice is supposed to impartially, blindly look at facts and law. And, if you have to start including your emotions because the Constitution is necessarily vague, you should be erring on the side of caution and not inserting your personal views into your interpretation of the Constitution. Yet this is exactly what Obama would be looking for in a judicial appointee.

Obama and the world

If it were just that he was inexperienced and naïve, I might be able to make my peace with him and trust that once in office, he would be willing to listen to those more experienced and come to realize that his puppies-and-unicorns view of the world is a little out of date.

But his stubbornness in clinging to ideas that have been proven wrong and refusing to listen to any alternative proves he will be a disaster in the foreign policy arena. He still hasn’t acknowledged the success (or at least, the lack of failure) of the surge in Iraq and has said he will pull American troops out regardless of the situation on the ground.

He thinks that by talking to Iran, Ahmadinejad will finally see the light and stop being insane. That’s the problem – you can’t use logic with someone who denies the Holocaust.

This is Obama’s legacy

To say to us, the people: You don’t know what you need and can’t be trusted to run your own lives, so I and the government must do it for you. And if by some chance you manage to be successful, we will tax you brutally and use the money to give handouts to the poor. Because they are more important than you.

To tell the world: If you make it tough enough, we will back down. We will not defend this country and freedom around the world, but we will talk to bullies and terrorists and try to find common ground. Because, after all, if you’re a victim, you must have done something to deserve it.

Disgusting. “Change we can believe in”? That’s definitely true, but the change won’t be a good one, and you should certainly believe that.