Barack to the right

[Anonymous]

I was not too surprised that Obama will vote for the new FISA law even if it includes amnesty for the communication companies, since he could not afford to oppose anti-terrorist legislation. But his opposition to the Supreme Court decision against the death penalty in child rape cases strikes me as a blatant attempt to shed the label "liberal". Does he really want to put himself to the right of Justice Kennedy, in the company of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I was not too surprised that Obama will vote for the new FISA law even if it includes amnesty for the communication companies, since he could not afford to oppose anti-terrorist legislation. But his opposition to the Supreme Court decision against the death penalty in child rape cases strikes me as a blatant attempt to shed the label "liberal". Does he really want to put himself to the right of Justice Kennedy, in the company of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito?

The answer to your last question is "yes". He would probably like to put himself to the right of McCain if he could. This is very similar to how he behaved when he first won his Senate seat. It seemed like he was on a mission to be among the most conservative members of the chamber (which makes it doubly ironic that he is now touted as the most liberal). It is also similar to what Bill Clinton did after he secured the nomination. I understand it, I expected it, but that doesn't mean that I like it.

[Anonymous]

I think it's great he's opposing this horrible Supreme Court decision! I was absolutely appalled to hear about the ruling this morning. Raping a young child is far far worse than executing the person who did it. I do not find the punishment disproportionate at all. Raping a young child is one of the most horrible crimes a person can commit and they should receive the ultimate penalty for doing so. I am differentiating here between child rape and rape of an adult/teenager. The state's law said the victim had to be under 12. How can anyone think it is not the most heinous crime to rape a child that young?

I actually was quite saddened to find out that so few states have a law allowing the death penalty for child rapists and that so few people actually receive this sentence for committing that crime.

[Anonymous]

Obama is tacking to the right with alacrity. Supporting the FISA compromise, when he had promised to fillibuster FISA, is a major example. Jeff raises the comparison of Bill Clinton, but Clinton had actually taken many moderate stances during his governorships, well before he ran for president. Two of the most obvious are education reform including teacher testing, which infuriated the teachers' union, and support for capital punishment. So while he did tack to the right after securing the nomination, he had a history of taking stances that were criticized by the left, and Obama goes further by altogether reversing some of his positions. Here's the latest example, with local relevance. As reported by Politico:

Getting ready for a gun ruling
The Obama campaign, getting ready for an expected Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s gun control legislation, reverses a statement it put out last year that the ban was constitutional.

(The campaign now describes the statement as "inartful," but it wasn't ambiguous: "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.")

In elements of Obama's record, he seems always to have had an eye on the national stage, avoiding the default positions of a politician who represented a city district where liberal positions are a default. On guns, he's been struggling to maintain that he's had sympathy for gun rights all along, and his campaign has insisted -- as in this case -- that it's not Obama whose moved, it's that past statements pro-gun control statments have been the fault of his staff, as in a pair of questionnaires from 1996 in which he favored firm gun control measures.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The Obama campaign, getting ready for an expected Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s gun control legislation, reverses a statement it put out last year that the ban was constitutional.

Clearly, Obama is bitter about being labeled the most liberal senator and is going to cling to guns and religion.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Obama campaign, getting ready for an expected Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s gun control legislation, reverses a statement it put out last year that the ban was constitutional.

Clearly, Obama is bitter about being labeled the most liberal senator and is going to cling to guns and religion.

LOL -- well put!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's great he's opposing this horrible Supreme Court decision! I was absolutely appalled to hear about the ruling this morning. Raping a young child is far far worse than executing the person who did it. I do not find the punishment disproportionate at all. Raping a young child is one of the most horrible crimes a person can commit and they should receive the ultimate penalty for doing so. I am differentiating here between child rape and rape of an adult/teenager. The state's law said the victim had to be under 12. How can anyone think it is not the most heinous crime to rape a child that young?

I actually was quite saddened to find out that so few states have a law allowing the death penalty for child rapists and that so few people actually receive this sentence for committing that crime.

I agree with everything you say about child-rape except the conclusion that capital punishment is the appropriate response. Here are a couple of reasons I disagree:

First, it is beyond my comprehension how anyone could do such a horrible thing. The only thing I can think of is that the person was sick, suffering from a compulsion strong enough to overcome reason, compulsion so strong the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Second, precisely because it is so heinous, a jury's decision is likely to be colored by emotion that makes it more likely that they might convict the wrong person. The more you hate the crime, the more likely the death penalty is an act of vengeance rather than justice.

But I raised the question not because I am enthusiastic about the Court's decision; I won't be shedding tears about the death of a child-rapist. However, when we are talking about an issue of such emotional power, but which actually applies to TWO people in the entire country, making a political issue of a case that must have been very difficult for the Justices, who I'm sure are also revolted at the thought of child-rape, does no service to the rule of law.

[Anonymous]

I must say that the Dems are in trouble if they think that they can swing left then right then back. OK, he wants to tax me into oblivion, and execute more people, and have me work for less (health care professional)? What's in it for me? I am a liberal in health care with an income that he has his eyes on taking. I would get nothing by voting for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
(The campaign now describes the statement as "inartful," but it wasn't ambiguous: "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.")

I'm about to split hairs; please forgive me.

The two issues in the decision are individual right vs collective right and the meaning of "shall not be infringed". I thought infringe means "to limit", and that Scalia was inconsistent in listing examples of acceptable limitations. But I just looked up "infringe" (in an 1851 Webster's Dictionary to get a bit closer to the time the Amendment was written) and find it means "to break, as contracts". So, if limitation is acceptable, as long as you don't totally abrogate the individual's right, the issue is what limitations are acceptable.

I interpret Obama's position to be that it is an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but that the District's limitation was acceptable: just as freedom of speech is an individual right that does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, the individual right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily extend to doing so in a crowded, violent, city. His statement about the District's gun law was incomplete in that it did not explain that he thought the law was an acceptable limitation of a right, rather than that the right did not exist. In other words, it was incomplete and prone to being misunderstood, or, to be brief, "inartful".

Unfortunately, describing it as "inartful" was probably itself inartful.

[Anonymous]

There is really nothing in it for you economically. Obama already assumed that people making over a certain amount aren't going to vote for him so he is not really worried about you--sorry But..he is thrilled to tap into your hard earned income--of course this will have disasterous results--think when Clinton had to agree to the tax cuts in 94 after the 94 revolt. I think if you are going to vote for him-focus on that he is pro choice and I do actually believe that he is anti death penalty (I don't buy any pro death penality stance once in)--I also think he is less inclined to prolong the war. I am trying to be fair..Now for me--the idea of paying more taxes than I already do is enough to make me sick esp. when I hear about how my life is soooooo easy--yes it's good but both hubby and I worked and worked for everything and didn't do it by trying to confiscate from others--40 hours is a foreign word in our houseyhold as are jobs that hold stable for years on end--we have to produce to earn wealth. Obama's tax plan is about bringing out the worst in people because the theme is "you would do so much better" if the wealthy did worse. This is loser thinking.

[Anonymous]

I'm the 8:48 poster. I find it hard to believe, but I may vote for McCain, depending on who he chooses as his running mate. Economically, it makes no sense for me to vote for Obama. As for the war, I am troubled by the sense that the far left seems completely unwilling to admit any gains in Iraq. I can't help but believe that McCain has a better understanding of war than Obama does.

[Anonymous]

It's all about their base-for Obama the vast majority of his voters are people who are completely anti war so he is not going to admit anything whether he believes it or not. It's just the political game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the 8:48 poster. I find it hard to believe, but I may vote for McCain, depending on who he chooses as his running mate. Economically, it makes no sense for me to vote for Obama. As for the war, I am troubled by the sense that the far left seems completely unwilling to admit any gains in Iraq. I can't help but believe that McCain has a better understanding of war than Obama does.

I find it hard to believe also, but I may be voting for McCain. I cannot afford someone with Obama's new tax vision (or income redistribution plan). I work hard, and after Clinton was elected the first time I had to cut a check for an additional $25K in taxes due to his new plan. I actually cried because it was the money we were putting aside to invest in new equipment for our company, and it was irreplaceable. While I very much like him (Obama), I don't think I can afford him and it makes me sad.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I find it hard to believe also, but I may be voting for McCain. I cannot afford someone with Obama's new tax vision (or income redistribution plan). I work hard, and after Clinton was elected the first time I had to cut a check for an additional $25K in taxes due to his new plan. I actually cried because it was the money we were putting aside to invest in new equipment for our company, and it was irreplaceable. While I very much like him (Obama), I don't think I can afford him and it makes me sad.

Yeah, I remember those terrible Clinton years when we had budget surpluses and a booming economy. That sucked. There is nothing I'd like more than four more years of Bush-style deficits, a weakening dollar, unaffordable gas, and increasing unemployment. As long as there are tax cuts for the rich and tax breaks for big oil, I'm good with it. Four more years! Vote McCain!

[Anonymous]

You know, the Clinton years were funded more by the Bush and Reagan policies than by Clinton's policies. I attended a lecture at GW where they pointed out that economic policies have a "harvest cycle" of a little over 10 years, so that no president can really point (except in dire cases) to economic successes during their own presidencies with any kind of ownership. Okay, unless they start a freaking war! I wish I had paid closer attention because the lecturer had very clear timelines showing start and "harvest" dates of different economic legislation.

I am going to look for him online and see if I can post a link.