After 21 months of polls, primaries, and nonstop coverage of the candidate's fashion sense, it's finally over. And even though I didn't support the man who won, he still achieved his victory fair and sqaure. Obama is now our president-elect through no other reason that that is what America wanted. As to what that exactly means, and what the circumstances behind those decisions were, I'm not nearly qualified enough to analyze that.
I left a comment on another post stating my intention to vote for McCain, and I followed through on that election yesterday, the first time I had ever voted in a national election. It's not because I'm racist, or I think Obama is a secret Muslim, or for any other immature, cosmetic reason like that. Obama, from what I've seen, is a terrific politician, speaker, and family man. I have no ill will towards the guy. I just didn't agree with any of his platforms, and I don't think he has enough experience to be President.
McCain wasn't my first choice for candidate, and I believe his campaign was run terribly. The ads he ran, his choice for VP, and his performance at the debates, all might've been able to stand in any other election, but for many voters, obviously paled in comparison to the juggernaut that was the "Hope and Change" movement on Obama's side.
But the Presidency wasn't the only position in question last night either. While the Democrats were expected to maintain their majority, what some didn't expect was to extend it as to almost reach the magical 60-seat mark that would allow the party to break any fillibuster in the Senate. Coupled with a Democratic (and arguably, very liberal) president, bills would get passed with little or no chance for opposition. This is something that truly worried me, and I would say the exact same thing if the Republicans were in this position. No one party deserves that much power over the legislature, and it all but nullifies the very reason for having a partisan legislature in the first place. Granted, that's assuming that all the Democrats vote one way, but that possibility of power is one temptation I do not want among our elected representatives.
Well, America wanted change, and it got it. Whether it will be a change for the better?...We'll find out soon enough.
(# 0) on 11/05/2008 19:33
1) I'm curious as to where you get the impression that Obama is "very liberal" - most every policy proposal of his that I've seen puts him roughly in the league of Bill Clinton, who was hardly a raving lefty. If nothing else, he built his campaign partially on "reaching across the aisle" and bringing the parties together - how much he does of this, of course, remains to be seen, but again, what has he done or proposed that would put him so very far to the left?
2) This one you don't have to actually answer here, but I would like you to honestly consider the answer, yourself - you said above that you would not feel comfortable with either party holding such a large Congressional majority. I ask, however, how did you feel the past several years, when your party held power in all three branches, and all but completely excluded any opposition to its mandates? Most conservatives I know were happy as clams while their party ran rampant, and have just very recently began distancing themselves from the goings-on of the Bush years, demanding "bipartisanship" from the party they refused to let into the room for a decade or more - I have no idea whether or not you're among them, but I'd say that this is one thing that every conservative needs to ask him/herself at this point, in order to understand how many liberals have felt for so long, and how we feel now.
(# 1) on 11/05/2008 20:36
His health care plan alone puts him squarely in the progressive (liberal) camp, as does his stances on abortion and gun control. He also supports increased governmental restrictions on many industries and areas of the economy.
Most conservatives I know (and I know a lot of them) were happy when the Republicans controlled the legislature because they assumed that the party would pass measures that they agreed with. That obviously wasn't the case. Conservatives now identify themselves more as "conservatives" and less as "Republicans" because they realize that not one party will pass every law that they want. I suspect that after a few years, liberals will start to do the same.
(# 2) on 11/05/2008 21:03
As for the latter part of your comment, perhaps the conservatives you know are different from the ones I'm acquainted with, but even as Bush was circumventing the rule of law, spending like a prodigal, sticking the government's nose where it didn't belong and promoting people who threw notions of both "qualification" and "morality" straight out the window, I heard hardly a peep of protest from GOP-ers and their ilk, not to mention that whenever I'd point something like this out I was, if not ignored, labeled a terrorist sympathizer and a bitter liberal hack. I'm sure there were voices of dissent out there, but I certainly didn't hear any of them, even as the administration abandoned every "conservative" creed you could name. The impression I got was that none of those really mattered anymore, and the excuse I got was that "9-11 changed everything."
Again, not saying this is/was you, but I know a great many who do fit that bill.
(# 3) on 11/05/2008 22:56
(# 4) on 11/05/2008 23:03
(# 5) on 11/06/2008 00:08
As for Obama's supposed centrism, I find that hard to swallow. For the most part, he's an unknown quantity... which I suspect is one reason for his astonishing popularity, as people could project their own hopes onto him. It's important to remember, however, that the two houses of congress have more power than the executive branch. As our hostess was pointing out, a democrat supermajority in both houses and a compliant President would have nothing to slow them down. It remains to be seen whether the president-elect will govern from the center-- but it's awfully hard to push something from the middle when you're standing on the left.
My apologies if this is less than coherent... it's been a rather long day. Also, if I might make a suggestion, perhaps a [NVGR] tag might be appropriate? Combo breaker picture aside, (Which is pretty damn awesome, by the way) this doesn't have much to do with the vidjamagames.
(# 6) on 11/06/2008 01:32
(# 7) on 11/06/2008 08:06
Forgot about the NVGR tag though, I'll get to that now. >.>
(# 8) on 11/06/2008 11:40
@Qualamari: You're correct that Obama's relatively new on the scene, but again, he's been telling us for some time now what he plans to do on a number of issues - granted, I'll be the first to say that he hasn't been specific enough on several of them, but on many fronts he's made it pretty clear where he stands, and I've seen nothing that puts him in the radical wing of the party. Once again, if anyone else has seen anything specific that suggests otherwise, I'm waiting to hear it.
Also, in response to what you say about it being "hard to govern from the center while standing on the left"...wouldn't the same thing apply on the right? Every candidate we elect is going to lean to one side or the other, so are we to assume that nobody is ever going to be able to keep himself in check and try to consider the other side's stance before making a decision? That's a bit of an overgeneralization, if you ask me.
(# 9) on 11/06/2008 13:03
(# 10) on 11/06/2008 22:39
Regarding your other statement... I'm not neccesarily worried that Obama will flip out and go ultra-liberal. I AM worried that Nancy Polosi and Harry Reid will expect him to and force bills through accordingly, causing him to go along with the party or else. Like I said before, congress has more power than the president, and if one doesn't like the other, they can effectively make the other's efforts worthless. That's by design, that's the Check and Balance system we all learned about in high school. I guess what I'm worried about is the peer pressure aspect, if that makes sense. "Hey man, we're all gonna pass this bill, you in? C'mon, man, everybody's doin' it."
Maybe I'm just paranoid.