Obama will bend or he won't be elected

[Still Growing]

I've been saying since the beginning of the race that Obama will bend or he won't get elected. Its my premise a lot of powerful people really make their suggestions to politicians behind closed doors. I don't think its just Obama speaking to Generals but a lot of other people in his ear as well.

Help me understand Republicans...

Now that he has won the Democratic nomination you'd think he'd stick to his platform. He knows that without the middle and without the special interests and the super delegates he doesn't have a chance.

We all know that the liberals were all screaming to leave Iraq immediately. This was the biggest hot button and now the entire idea is gone in a flash. If you are a liberal do you feel like he told you what you wanted to hear just to get your support?

Hot Air » Blog Archive » O’Hanlon: Obama’s Iraq policy now “ambiguous”

Then when and if he gets elected he will continue to bend. There really is no difference between Rep's and Democrats on the Presidential level. They're pretty much the same.

In numerous posts I've outlined how little power the US President has. Its congress, special interests, the US war machine and so on. The President is not much more than a figure head.

The extreme liberals will stay loyal to Obama and the conservatives will stay loyal to McCain. Both are so wishy washy and neither has a back bone.

What are the next promises that you think Obama will bend on? Free college for all? I bet that one doesn't have a chance either.

[Brutha]

If you read between the lines, Obama position wasn't much different halve a year ago. You had to be naive to read the things he said halve a year ago in way that would make his present position much different.

What are the next promises that you think Obama will bend on? Free college for all? I bet that one doesn't have a chance either.

Which special interest do you think is against Free college?
Free college is a feel good program that doesn't hurt anyone directly. Special interests normally lobby against programs that do hurt some special interest directly.
Free college is also no complicated issue. Maybe it's a waste of money in the eyes of a few people, but I don't think that the special interests are that much interested in whether someone wastes a bit money here or there.
There will probably be free opportunities to study, but not every university would be completly free.

I would rather suspect that free health care for everyone doesn't get through, because it's a complicated topic (you have to be smart about writting laws, and you have to do more than just writting a check) where there are special interests (the insurance lobby) that lobby against it.

In general, what politicans say before an election doesn't matter that much. What matters is how they act, which you can see in their history.

[Bitsy]

Here's an article and a list of both of their "u-turns," as BBC calls them:

BBC NEWS | Americas | US candidates practise their U-turns

[Fullcrum]

This is the first election I've really followed being cognizant not only of world events but also of personaly development themes.

If I were to tell me this on the street, my first reaction would be "That's retarded!"

And I stand by that reaction. This seems quite retarded. And intriguing.

To me, this puts more emphasis on improving our own lives and reaching our full deluxe potential. This means

1) Never NEVER thinking as a victim
2) Making steady progress on all our goals in all areas of our life.
3) Having the deepest and richest experience of life as humanly possible.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you read between the lines, Obama position wasn't much different halve a year ago.

Really? Obama himself said he changed his position after speaking with the generals in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Which special interest do you think is against Free college?

None.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Free college is a feel good program that doesn't hurt anyone directly.

Higher taxes might be required to pay for that no?

Originally Posted by Brutha

I would rather suspect that free health care for everyone doesn't get through, because it's a complicated topic

Now here is something that I can see special interests getting into Obama's ear over. There is a lot of money in the current health care system.

[Dan.Linehan]

The Hot Air article seems desperate to take statements out of context.

Obama's policy on this seems very clear to me.

"Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war," Obama said in remarks prior to taking questions. "My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately but decisively."

My question for the Hot Air blog would be this: Does it matter to the publisher that Bush has doubled the federal debt and collapsed the dollar by half during his administration? That's not partisan, that's just math.

If a political writer isn't willing to address real, measurable concerns like the economy, yet is willing to write blustery articles about whether Obama will listen to his Generals when withdrawing from Iraq, it seems like a strong indicator that he is grossly lacking in the journalistic integrity department.

Of course Obama is going to listen to his Generals. The fact is, if Bush had listened to his Generals all along we wouldn't be in this quagmire. The Army isn't dumb, even though Bush has done his best to make them appear to be, and they don't like getting their asses kicked -- which is exactly what has happened because of Bush's painfully arrogant policies. Watch "No End in Sight" to see the extent to which the Bush administration disregarded every recommendation that analysts had in handling strategic actions in Iraq. Now we're left with this, chaos and ruined lives, both at home and abroad.

Now, Obama is trying to clean up the mess and is faced with self-righteous indignation from pundits trying their hardest to take anything and everything he says out of context? The hypocrisy is palatable.

[Lauxa]

I don't see any possible way McCain could win this election. People are so sick of the Iraq war and kind of annoyed with Republicans in general because of Bush. The Congress is already controlled by Democrats; Obama is going to be elected.

If you were pulling the strings on the American political machine, who would you want elected? I think you would want the presidential candidate that the congress will support so you can push through all your programs. Obama!

I think Obama will not get us out of the middle east, but will just shift the troops to Iran and/or Syria, and the war machine will still be funded. Additionally, he'll institute all these social programs, increasing the tax burden on the middle class. Bye bye middle class! Do you realize the middle class already pays about 60-70% of its income to taxes (federal, state, and local)? Try calculating your tax burden (don't forget sales tax, property tax, car registration, etc) and see what number you come up with.

Not that McCain would be any better.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

I don't see any possible way McCain could win this election. People are so sick of the Iraq war and kind of annoyed with Republicans in general because of Bush. The Congress is already controlled by Democrats; Obama is going to be elected.
. . .
I think Obama will not get us out of the middle east, but will just shift the troops to Iran and/or Syria, and the war machine will still be funded. Additionally, he'll institute all these social programs, increasing the tax burden on the middle class. Bye bye middle class! Do you realize the middle class already pays about 60-70% of its income to taxes (federal, state, and local)? Try calculating your tax burden (don't forget sales tax, property tax, car registration, etc) and see what number you come up with.

Not that McCain would be any better.

While the Republicans have set up a loss in the election by most reasonable indicators, I think McCain has a pretty good shot. He appeals to the center (or did, before he blundered by trying to win over the ideologues in his party), and is far more difficult to attack than Obama. The race issue has play in the South and the fear of the unfamiliar gave McCain an advantage. Had McCain fought for battleground states and the middle in those states, the poll numbers would be closer. He might turn it around yet, if he changes his current strategy.

I think Obama will be more sensitive to avoiding international conflict. His familiarity with Muslims (including his time in Indonesia) has increased other countries' respect for him, and makes him more likely to understand their actions. My impression is that he'll seek a Clinton style foreign policy with negotiations backed with cruise missile strikes and special forces ops.

As to taxes, 70%? That's exaggerating. Federal income tax caps at 35% for over 357,700, with the 35% rate only on amounts over 357,700. Middle class caps would probably be either 25% or 28%, depending on total income. Depending on income, property tax and registration will eat up a variable percentage (higher percentage with less income). Even with a liberal state sales and income tax, I don't see how you could come up with greater than 50%, and that is for $300k + income. As to the middle class, it would be much, much less.

Obama favors tax cuts at the lower end of the pyramid, while McCain believes tax cuts at the higher end will do more to stimulate the economy. I think the middle class do need a break for the health of the economy, again leading me to favor Obama. I just can't wrap my head around McCain's argument in this area.

[JSB]

With the next US president set to inherit a number of insoluble, systemic problems, and a probable steep decline in US prosperity and influence over the next decade, I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would want the job right now.

[Brutha]

Really? Obama himself said he changed his position after speaking with the generals in Iraq.

His statement before included lines like if there is a threat that Al Quaida takes over Irak, he will change his position.
He hadn't had a static position.

Actually I don't expect politicans to have a static position because that's dumb and removes space for decision making.
To you really want someone who doesn't listen to other people?

Higher taxes might be required to pay for that no?

You need also higher taxes to pay for something like the Iraq war, but that doesn't mean that special interests oppose the war.

In general that's the problem with special interests influencing policy decisions. You get worse decisions because it suddenly matters whether there is a lobby for something and it doesn't matter that much whether money is wasted.

Then you stop reading, go back and ask for a real reference!

Unfortunatly there is little peer reviewed information about day to day politics.

But to get the actual position that is presented on Obamas website his position is:

Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

I don't think that this reads differently then his positions halve a year ago.

It leaves any option open, because you can decide whether or not you see Al Qaeda is attempting to build a base.
It's just the media who reports positions one dimensional and make you think that Obama's position was more static and specific than it was.

[Ponce]

No matter who takes over the White House the country is GONE

All that you can do is to bunker down by protecting yourself and those closed to you.......is going to be a very nasty ride, get ready.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Actually I don't expect politicans to have a static position because that's dumb and removes space for decision making.
To you really want someone who doesn't listen to other people?

I agree with you. However, I agree because I like the revisions he is making. If you however, take the position that we should pull out of Iraq fast and not change your position then of course you'd disagree. I agree that being able to change is good but its also important to take note of that change and to hold politicians accountable.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You need also higher taxes to pay for something like the Iraq war, but that doesn't mean that special interests oppose the war.

This is a simple statement with a complex answer. First off, because we are spending too much on Iraq doesn't mean that we should continue to spend too much for other things. I think that Iraq should be transitioned and that the US should fix its high schools before making college free for all. It makes NO since to give free college to all when our schools are a mess. Wouldn't you agree? As for the special interests, of course they don't oppose the war, some special interest such as Halliburton are making a fortune as the exclusive GC for the war with a non compete agreement in place. Very nice contract.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that this reads differently then his positions halve a year ago.

It leaves any option open, because you can decide whether or not you see Al Qaeda is attempting to build a base.
It's just the media who reports positions one dimensional and make you think that Obama's position was more static and specific than it was.

If you lead people to believe that you will get troops out immediately and then once you've got your nomination you immediately start catering to the middle and saying that you are willing to revise your policies. NOW, you can play coy and go back and say that you've always been open to revisions then you can't loose now can you?

At the beginning you said that you don't expect politicians to be static then you say that you don't see where he has made any changes. Which is it? Either he is static or he is not on this subject.

I for one am glad to see that he's moving more to the center and revising some of his extreme liberal policies. The only question is "will he go back to the far left once elected or will he stay in the center on some of his positions?"

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Ponce

No matter who takes over the White House the country is GONE

All that you can do is to bunker down by protecting yourself and those closed to you.......is going to be a very nasty ride, get ready.

I hear everyone saying that the country is gone. What is your definition of gone?

Over the last decade we've experienced extreme growth and inflation. It would be unhealthy for the US economy to continue in its current path.

Now if you believe that the US will have a recession or continued flat growth I would agree but if you are thinking that the country will go into a depression like the 20's I dont' see any evidence for that. Not that it can't happen but what leads you to believe that?

[Brutha]

I agree that being able to change is good but its also important to take note of that change and to hold politicians accountable.

If someone promised not to change, you can held him accountable for changing.

If on the other hand the person says, that his policy is subject to the development it's unfair to held change against that person.
You can still be against his new position, but there is nothing wrong with being dynamic.

This is a simple statement with a complex answer. First off, because we are spending too much on Iraq doesn't mean that we should continue to spend too much for other things. I think that Iraq should be transitioned and that the US should fix its high schools before making college free for all. It makes NO since to give free college to all when our schools are a mess. Wouldn't you agree?

We are talking about how special interests influence politics.
You might hope that Obama changes his free college plan, but see the system working not as rational as you would want it to.
If I want to know whether special interests influence a certain policy decision I don't ask: Is this policy a good idea?
I ask: "Is there a special interest that has a strong interest in changing the policy?"

Another question is after the complexity of the measure. Changing the health care system needs experts to lay out in detail how a new system works for which you need discussion.
Just paying each university a certain amount of money for each student doesn't require much system development.
For that reason it's a lot easier for lobbists to influence the health care decision.

You should be able to mentally seperate the questions:
1) Is XY a good choice.
2) Is XY a something that will happen given the system.

If you lead people to believe that you will get troops out immediately and then once you've got your nomination you immediately start catering to the middle and saying that you are willing to revise your policies.

If people don't read his position on his website and understand it don't shouldn't complain afterwards that they were mislead.

Obama position was mainly that he had a plan, and that plan included the Al Quaeda passage that vague. Depending on how you judge Al Quaedas's status, the actions that Obama will take change.

At the beginning you said that you don't expect politicians to be static then you say that you don't see where he has made any changes. Which is it? Either he is static or he is not on this subject.

I see nothing in his present position that conflicts which his past position.
But on the other hand everything has some change in it where humans act. You can't be in a public discurs without getting new ideas.

[Still Growing]

I am completely confused

So Obama has not really changed his position about Iraq because his initial position stated that in the future he may change his position. Furthermore its good to be dynamic and be able to be flexible enough to change your position even though he actually hasn't changed his position.

Like I said, I am so happy to see his current position on Iraq. Even if its actually the same as his initial position before he revised it.

My harsh critique may come across as anti-Obama which I'm not. I only want to say that when it comes to Iraq there will be no difference between McCain and Obama. I know they both are saying very different things.

I kind of hope Obama is elected so that when we start building the bases in Iraq I can give a big "I told you so".

Very rarely am I foolish enough to predict the future; on this one though I'm pretty confident.

The US's foreign policy will hardly be changed by Obama. As I've said in many posts, the US President is a figure head when it comes to Int'l policy.I can't prove it to you as its just my opinion.

[Brutha]

So Obama has not really changed his position about Iraq because his initial position stated that in the future he may change his position. Furthermore its good to be dynamic and be able to be flexible enough to change your position even though he actually hasn't changed his position.

It matters whether you commit yourself to a static position or stay dynamic.

The US's foreign policy will hardly be changed by Obama.

That kind of a strawman argument.
Obama isn't the only one in the US who is against the war.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It matters whether you commit yourself to a static position or stay dynamic.

When Obama initially stated that he would begin immediate withdrawal he didn't say that it would be pending gathering information. He added that part later on. Now that he has changed his position and is not planning for immediate withdrawal he is wisely changing his position. Now his position is much more moderate and much less like those ultra liberals would prefer. Believe me, I have very liberal friends grumbling right now.

Originally Posted by Brutha

That kind of a strawman argument.
Obama isn't the only one in the US who is against the war.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I have not misrepresented Obama's position. I am making a prediction that if he is elected that we will still have bases in Iraq even though he is promising we won't. Thats not a straw man argument, its a prediction.

Do you think if he's elected we'll be 100% out of Iraq in 16 months as he is promising? I read your posts all the time Brutha, you're a smart guy who is highly argumentative. Usually you're right and I bet you're too smart to fall into this prediction.

[Brutha]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I have not misrepresented Obama's position.

In this discussion I take the other side, not Obama.
It doesn't come down completly to Obama whether or not the US will leave Iraq, but that doesn't mean that they won't.
And I don't know who will win that conflict, but Obama surly isn't the only person who pushes against Iraq.

When Obama initially stated that he would begin immediate withdrawal he didn't say that it would be pending gathering information. He added that part later on.

When do you think that he added the bit about Al Quaeda? Archive.org unfortunatly doesn't show yet his first Iraq anouncement. The last page that it shows has Obama talking about his record of being against the war and the thing that he did in the senate on Iraq.

Do you think if he's elected we'll be 100% out of Iraq in 16 months as he is promising? I read your posts all the time Brutha, you're a smart guy who is highly argumentative. Usually you're right and I bet you're too smart to fall into this prediction.

Read the fine print of his promise.
Reducing it to that sentence doesn't respresent the thing Obama is promising.

[Still Growing]

I haven't used Archive.org. How is it?

Read the fine print about Obama? Is that what its come to today?

Since I'm more of an Independent its easy for me to see that Obama is carefully nudging towards the middle. Very smart.

Politicians gave give you legalise to say they haven't changed their position however this is all rubbish.

Lets not foget that Kerry got smacked for his lack of consistency. Obama needs to be very careful right now to maintain his credibility. Do you agree?

[Brutha]

I haven't used Archive.org. How is it?

It's the best choice to check what a website said in the past.

Read the fine print about Obama? Is that what its come to today?

The fine print of the plan says:

if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

And I do think it's says that thing think Obama presented his plan.
Now if he talk to his generals and they tell him that Al Quaeda attempts to build a base in Iraq, it's no conflict for him to keep US troops in Iraq.

Lets not foget that Kerry got smacked for his lack of consistency. Obama needs to be very careful right now to maintain his credibility. Do you agree?

I think you should think more about seperating handling politically effective and supporting the best policy. If you can't seperate the two mentally you will make bad predictions from time to time.

Self-Swiftboating (Lessig Blog) is good in talking about the strategic decisions about consistency.
Filebustering the telco immunity act would have made sense to show consistency to the media and support the "Obama is different" narrative.

In The immunity hysteria (Lessig Blog) Lessig argues:

Obama is no (in the 1970s sense) "liberal": There are many who are upset by this who believe this (and other recent moves) shows Obama "moving to the center." People who make this argument signal they don't know squat about which they speak. You can't read Obama's books, watch how he behaved in the Illinois Senate, and watched how he voted in the US Senate, and believe he is a Bernie Sanders liberal. He is not now, and nor has ever been.

I do think that's factually true.
Sure that's not his press image.
The press image matters, but it's not true. If you believe to much in media narratives you don't understands what happens and shouldn't have the right to complain that someone didn't act based on his media image.

Acting based on media image is often a smart thing to do in our postmodern world but it's not dishonest to not follow the media narrative.

So if you're upset with Obama because you see him shifting, you should actually be upset with yourself that you have been so careless in understanding the politics of this candidate.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
We all know politicians are crafty with their word use. Politicians intentionally take positions that increase the statistical probability of being elected.

So you would have me to believe that Obama is in no way allowing liberals to see his stance as more aligned with them just a few months ago and now he is currently courting the undecided voters?

I originally posted this thread as "Obama will bend or he won't be elected" so keeping with the thread I will say that you will continue to see revisions (which you call being dynamic). I am not hating on Obama for this because I know McCain is no better.

You seem to have a very high regard of Obama. Maybe so high that its not possible to maintain.

[Brutha]

So you would have me to believe that Obama is in no way allowing liberals to see his stance as more aligned with them just a few months ago and now he is currently courting the undecided voters?

I just don't expect politicans to not allow other people to think something about them.
It's a very naive expectation that doesn't help.

You are far more likely to get an accurate image about a candidat if you focus on his record than the things he says directly before an election.

On the issue of Iraq you do also have to consider that Iraqi will vote another time. I don't know whether it's possible to bribe the new president into not passing a US leaving Iraq timetable.
Those things influence the US decision whether to stay in Iraq a bit, especially with someone like Obama as president.
I don't think that it is certain that the US will leave Iraq with Obama, but I think that Obamas position on Iraq is a lot better than McCains.

In addition I find issues like campain finance reform and transparency (Obama wants to publish goverment stuff in general a lot more on the web) central issues.
On the other hand McCain doens't even use a computer, so I don't expect him to understand much about using the internet to increase transparency.

I think that it's very important to have someone who understands some things in power. Obama doesn't understand that much about foreign policy (but McCain neither with confusing Shia and Sunni) and I do think that right to listen to people who know something (generals) when you make decisions, especially if you don't know that much about the topic. What Obama said about military action in Pakistan is the clue that he should get advice before making miliary decisions.

I think that systems matter. I care a lot more about decisions like listing to people who know something before making dumb mistakes, than about the actual position on the issue that a candidate takes before an election.

Making good public policy isn't easy.
It's a lot more than deciding between "Yes and No" on an issue.

If you reduce the space in which decisions are being made by excepting politicans to tell you everything that they do in their term before the election, you get worse public policy.
And you also get disappointed.

[schola]

What do you expect? Both candidates in this election only offer the illusion of choice. One even runs of the platform of "Change" but the truth is they both offer more of the same.

You can't get to the high office of President without being well versed in lying, doublespeak and demagoguery.


On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Institute

Unlike kings then, congressmen, presidents, and Supreme Court judges do not and cannot acquire their positions accidentally. Rather, they reach their position because of their proficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Moreover, even outside the orbit of government, within civil society, individuals will increasingly rise to the top of economic and financial success, not on account of their productive or entrepreneurial talents or even their superior defensive political talents, but rather because of their superior skills as unscrupulous political entrepreneurs and lobbyists. Thus, the Constitution virtually assures that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate over all.

[Brutha]

You can't get to the high office of President without being well versed in lying, doublespeak and demagoguery.

Yeah, people don't care for the track record of the amount of promises that the person holded in past elections but about getting big promises of change.
People vote for those who don't tell them the whole truth.
Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

Thus, the Constitution virtually assures that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate over all.

Schola, I thought you were pro-constitution?

[schola]

I suppose I still am but I found that article recently and I really like some of the points made in it.