Sunday, November 09, 2008

Top Five: Things Obama Didn't Talk About

Yes, we did, and I include myself in that yes. I was one of the change voters; not that I think an Obama presidency is going to bring in the millennium, the age of Aquarius, or even "change the way business is done in Washington". But at the very least I felt it was necessary to remove the power of the executive from a political party that took our nation to war on a false casus beli.

Nevertheless I do have some reservations about President-elect Obama, and amidst the deserved congratulations for an excellent campaign and the excitement about electing the first African-American president, I feel it is necessary to express that my support of his agenda is not unqualified. While I disagree with Obama regarding the issues of homosexual marriage and abortion--issues for which, in my opinion, executive power matters less than legislative--I am more concerned about the issues he didn't talk about, or at least didn't communicate to me, during his campaign. It will be interesting to see how he addresses, sidesteps or exacerbates these problems.

Top Five Things Obama Didn't Talk About
  1. How The Economy Will Impact His Promises
  2. Signing Statements
  3. Congress Shifting Its War Powers to the President
  4. Illegal NSA Surveillance
  5. Ending American Imperialism
Is there anything Obama didn't talk about that you hope he'll address? Maybe you're worried he won't? Let us know.

P.s. How do I update my spellchecker with the words "Barack" and "Obama"? "Hussein" is already there.


  1. "homosexual marriage and abortion--issues for which, in my opinion, executive power matters less than legislative"

    I do realize that the president/governor has the power to appoint judges, who hold the most power on these issues. However the congress must approve those appointments and has the power to make new laws and constitutional amendments.

  2. That is mute in this Congress and you know it.

    I could not knowingly throw my support behind a party that would rip the Constitution in two right in front of your face and deny doing it.

    It is absolutely frightening when judges can argue that there is a "right to privacy" in the Constitution (even thought the word is not mentioned) but yet "struggle" with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

    And then don't even talk about applying "international law" and referring to treaties that the country has not even signed!!

    If rule by fiat isn't a more immediate and long-term danger than popular hand-wringing about "this illegal war" (suddenly illegal because it was a Republican who started it--as Clinton did his own missile lobbying on the same "causus belli" to deafening silence), I don't know what is.

    This country was an exceptional political idea that is now hurtling towards garden-variety EU-lite.

  3. Rule by fiat is a danger with both major political parties. It seems to me that the Republicans have taken it to a new level since the Clinton years. It remains to be seen whether Obama will continue the trend.

    Clinton said he was shooting missiles at terrorists. He hit a milk factory, but at least we knew why he did it (casus beli). He was going after terrorists where he thought they were. (He also destroyed Al Qaida training camps.)

    Bush said he was going after WMD and the people who did 9/11, and it turned out neither were in Iraq. Later we found out the Rumsfeld and Cheney cooked the intelligence books to make it look like WMD were in Iraq. They conned America into thinking Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

    When you deceive the public about your reasons for war, that's a false casus beli. (Remember the Maine?) If the Republicans wanted to get Saddam because he was a bad guy, they should have said so. Now they are paying for their political alliance with war mongering neo-conservatives.