Worse than all of their previous foreign policy gaffes is Obama's inability to understand the depth of the current situation or coherently explain how he would handle U.S. policy toward Iran. He has been anything but clear regarding his intent toward the Ahmadinejad regime. During a campaign stop in Oregon, Obama said of Iran, "They don't pose a serious threat to us, in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us," and went on to explain why he doesn’t think we need to worry about “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Yet on the following day in Montana Obama said, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave." Conflicting statements? Not according to Obama.
But the question Obama received during the CNN/Youtube Democrat Debate couldn't have been any clearer. "In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
Obama replied, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."
He makes the case that he should sit down face to face with the sadistic leaders of these rogue states by suggesting that the Berlin Wall fell because we engaged Mikhail Gorbachev in negotiations and that "Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba."
This is an absurdity.
The Cuban Missle Crisis is an example of reactive negotiations to an emergency that had reached a near-fatal crescendo, rather than the type of pre-emptive meetings Obama calls for. Further, claiming that the U.S.-Soviet summits of the 1980s alone produced peace between the superpowers would be an incredibly naive supposition for anyone to make.
Contrary to Obama's statements on the issue, we met with the Soviets because they were a nuclear superpower. Our Iran policy should be built around preventing the mullahs from acquiring a single warhead. If we fail to prevent this, then we will indeed be forced to the negotiating table in a position of weakness to cut deals with a terrorist-sponoring, radical Islamist regime with an apocalyptic religious fanaticism.
Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives — i.e., preconditions — have been met. Obama has since come back from his claim that he would have insisted on preconditions all along, but even some Democrats detected an evolving position, including Joe Biden, who said, "This is a fellow who, I think, shorthanded an answer that, in fact, was the wrong answer, in my view, saying, 'I would, within the first year' -- it implied he'd personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him."
Does Obama think North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations? What's the point in negotiating with regimes who are in open violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions? When they meet face-to-face, what concessions does Obama think Ahmadinejad will offer him on Iran's nuclear program that haven't already been discussed during the five years of talks between Iran, our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency?
In my opinion, should a President seriously desire a conversation with these states, there are back-channel forms of diplomatic communication through intermediaries. Israel has for years held secret high-level meetings with her Arab neighbors, despite their refusal to even officially recognize the Jewish state, but they were secret and undisclosed to the public until years after.
To quote Krauthammer, "Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations — and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle — Obama keeps trying to explain." Meanwhile, our nation-state adversaries anxiously await an Obama victory.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
On Israel...
It doesnt help his trustworthiness in my mind, when Obama's statements on U.S.-Israel relations have also been anything but clear. His Israel positions follow an increasingly confusing pattern of obfuscation and double-talk that clouds his positions on many relevant policy issues.
At the 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama said "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." One day later, after being criticized by Arab leaders, Obama backtracked, saying, "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations." This is more than a simple slip-up. The status of Jerusalem is an incredibly sensitive topic on both sides.
Forget the fact that a Hamas spokesman first endorsed and then un-endorsed Obama's candidacy. I can quote Mohamed Habib, second in command over at the Muslim Brotherhood, aka, the Hamas of Egypt, on what he thinks of the choices in this Presidential election.
"We would naturally like to see the end of the current regime and that their practices are not to be repeated by the coming administration. We don't anticipate such change taking place if Senator John McCain wins, for he seems to be following the same line as the current American President George Bush. We are not so sure about Senator Obama either, because of his Israel visit, him saying that Israel is a democracy, and his visit to AIPAC, but we are withholding judgment because maybe he needs to do this to win. That being said, any change away from the criminal practices of the current administration is a good thing, and we would be happy with whatever candidate would put a stop to it."
Looks like Mohamed and I see eye to eye on one issue, thinking that "maybe he needs to do this to win."
One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Obama's career is his comfortable association with people who are anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic radicals. Early on in his career, some 20 years ago, he chose Trinity United as his place of worship and adopted Reverend Jeremiah Wright as his spiritual mentor. Aside from some of his other outlandish anti-American rants, Wright equates Zionism with racism, talks of the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, floated an accusation that the South Africans and Israelis conspired to create an "ethnic bomb" to kill blacks and Arabs and calls for his church's divestment in companies doing business with Israel in the July 2005 issue of the Trinity United Trumpet.
It's wildly hypocritical for a guy who donated $22,000 to Trinity United in 2006, to say "One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate."
Obama claims that he never sat in the pews during Wright's anti-Israel or anti-American sermons. He says that had he known about them, he would have hastened his departure from the church and ended his two decade friendship with the man who presided over his wedding and baptized his two children.
Even more confusing were his two conflicting speeches within weeks of each other where he first defended and excused Wright for his radical words, saying that he could not "disown" Wright any more than he could "disown his white grandmother." Obama did forcefully renounce Wright on April 30, but only after the Reverend called Obama's integrity into question, by saying, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected."
Such sordid associations and double-talk regarding Israel-U.S. relations make me unable to believe in his sincerity on this issue or his ability to be a competent broker in negotiations between the two parties. Neither do his statements during a Democratic primary debate, when Obama said "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people."
Despite having a host of liberal Jewish personal friends and close advisers to his campaign, I continue to doubt Obama's sincerity and question his ties to the growing radical wing within the Democrat party that espouses a more critical and condescending American policy toward Israel.
Ali Abunimah, a Hyde Park Palestinian-American activist, said that until a few years ago, Obama was "quite frank that the U.S. needed to be more evenhanded, that it leaned too much toward Israel." It was vivid in his memory, said Abunimah, because "these were the kind of statements I'd never heard from a U.S. politician who seemed like he was going somewhere rather than at the end of his career. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel."
But leave it to Jesse Jackson to open his mouth on this topic, who said that with Obama in the White House, "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will remain strong, but they'll lose a great deal of their clout, and "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.
There is little doubt in my mind why Israelis favor McCain over Obama by more than 20 percentage points, or why the Israel is the only nation in the world with a favorable opinion of President Bush. It's simply because both men abide by a common-sense U.S.-Israel policy that recognizes our close ties with the only liberal Democracy in the middle east and favors our strongest regional ally in the fight against radical Islamic extremism.
At the 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama said "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." One day later, after being criticized by Arab leaders, Obama backtracked, saying, "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations." This is more than a simple slip-up. The status of Jerusalem is an incredibly sensitive topic on both sides.
Forget the fact that a Hamas spokesman first endorsed and then un-endorsed Obama's candidacy. I can quote Mohamed Habib, second in command over at the Muslim Brotherhood, aka, the Hamas of Egypt, on what he thinks of the choices in this Presidential election.
"We would naturally like to see the end of the current regime and that their practices are not to be repeated by the coming administration. We don't anticipate such change taking place if Senator John McCain wins, for he seems to be following the same line as the current American President George Bush. We are not so sure about Senator Obama either, because of his Israel visit, him saying that Israel is a democracy, and his visit to AIPAC, but we are withholding judgment because maybe he needs to do this to win. That being said, any change away from the criminal practices of the current administration is a good thing, and we would be happy with whatever candidate would put a stop to it."
Looks like Mohamed and I see eye to eye on one issue, thinking that "maybe he needs to do this to win."
One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Obama's career is his comfortable association with people who are anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic radicals. Early on in his career, some 20 years ago, he chose Trinity United as his place of worship and adopted Reverend Jeremiah Wright as his spiritual mentor. Aside from some of his other outlandish anti-American rants, Wright equates Zionism with racism, talks of the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, floated an accusation that the South Africans and Israelis conspired to create an "ethnic bomb" to kill blacks and Arabs and calls for his church's divestment in companies doing business with Israel in the July 2005 issue of the Trinity United Trumpet.
It's wildly hypocritical for a guy who donated $22,000 to Trinity United in 2006, to say "One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate."
Obama claims that he never sat in the pews during Wright's anti-Israel or anti-American sermons. He says that had he known about them, he would have hastened his departure from the church and ended his two decade friendship with the man who presided over his wedding and baptized his two children.
Even more confusing were his two conflicting speeches within weeks of each other where he first defended and excused Wright for his radical words, saying that he could not "disown" Wright any more than he could "disown his white grandmother." Obama did forcefully renounce Wright on April 30, but only after the Reverend called Obama's integrity into question, by saying, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected."
Such sordid associations and double-talk regarding Israel-U.S. relations make me unable to believe in his sincerity on this issue or his ability to be a competent broker in negotiations between the two parties. Neither do his statements during a Democratic primary debate, when Obama said "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people."
Despite having a host of liberal Jewish personal friends and close advisers to his campaign, I continue to doubt Obama's sincerity and question his ties to the growing radical wing within the Democrat party that espouses a more critical and condescending American policy toward Israel.
Ali Abunimah, a Hyde Park Palestinian-American activist, said that until a few years ago, Obama was "quite frank that the U.S. needed to be more evenhanded, that it leaned too much toward Israel." It was vivid in his memory, said Abunimah, because "these were the kind of statements I'd never heard from a U.S. politician who seemed like he was going somewhere rather than at the end of his career. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel."
But leave it to Jesse Jackson to open his mouth on this topic, who said that with Obama in the White House, "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will remain strong, but they'll lose a great deal of their clout, and "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.
There is little doubt in my mind why Israelis favor McCain over Obama by more than 20 percentage points, or why the Israel is the only nation in the world with a favorable opinion of President Bush. It's simply because both men abide by a common-sense U.S.-Israel policy that recognizes our close ties with the only liberal Democracy in the middle east and favors our strongest regional ally in the fight against radical Islamic extremism.
On Energy...
Every person in this country is affected by higher energy costs, except it seems for Barack Obama and the Democrat Leadership in Congress. How can they say we shouldn't even look for new energy resources in our backyard, when we're sending BILLIONS of dollars in gas money to dictatorial regimes and nations that support terror? NOTE: The average price for a gallon of gas was $2.33 when the Democrats took over leadership of Congress on January 4, 2007.
Democrats always talk about how Republicans are in the pocket of the oil industry, but why are the Democrats content with $4.00 a gallon gas prices, and Nancy Pelosi refuses to even hold an up or down vote on offshore drilling?
It scares me to the core to think that the Democrats have allowed the environmental lobby to hijack our national energy policy. This is both a threat to our economic security and our national security.
It doesn't matter how many billion barrels of oil are under the ground in Alaska or off our shorelines, scientific projections vary on the exact amounts under our feet and off our shores. The oil market is a complex animal, but again, I don't need an economics degree to know that just talking about opening up new sources of American energy will lead to reduced prices at the pump, even if it takes five years to get that oil to market.
For Obama to propose handing out a $7,000 tax credit to drivers who buy advanced-technology vehicles and $4 billion in subsidies to the companies that produce them...claiming that this is a great solution to our dependence foreign oil...I ask, how will he pay for that? Tax the rest of us who are still driving the couple hundred or so million gas powered vehicles? What good will this accomplish? Again, its another Democrat trying to screw with free market principles.
I believe in a combination of both increased oil exploration and alternative energy promotion. Not solely alternative energy promotion. It's ridiculous for us to sit on what could be decades worth of new energy sources right in our own backyard and instead send our money to places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia.
While John McCain just recently came around on offshore drilling, he's at least finally come to realize that the rising price of gas and its ripple effects on our economy and national security are worth the minimal risks posed to our environment.
Never given to understatement and once again proving his willingness to go against fellow Republicans, McCain branded the 2005 Bush-administration backed energy plan as legislation with "no policy alternatives, just one pork-barrel project larded onto another" and the "leave no lobbyist behind bill." He was one of six Republicans to vote against the legislation.
Strangely, Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, a bill he now says was written in secret by Vice President Cheney and oil companies. When pressed by a reporter to explain this vote and why he has gone on to criticize McCain on the topic, even though McCain voted against the Bush bill, Obama clouds the issue and accuses the reporter of bias. Again, another case of Obama trying to have it both ways on an issue of critical importance to Americans.
Don't forget McCain's bill to combat greenhouse-gas emissions that garnered 16 co-sponsors, 14 of whom were Democrats, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, or the other McCain written global-warming bill that Obama signed onto.
Furthermore, Obama does not support the construction of new nuclear reactors, despite that nuclear energy produces zero carbon emissions, has a long history of safety, and we've got plenty of uranium here in the U.S. Or that Obama is against new clean-coal technologies, yet another source of fuel we have in abundant supply domestically.
Obama's Energy Plan is going to cost the country more money than we're already spending on energy, along with the same emissions reduction and environmentally conscious alternative energy policies that McCain supports. I choose McCain's sensible strategy that both supports exploration for new sources of traditional energy while also promoting sustainable alternatives and conservation.
On Social Issues...
I believe in a woman's right to choose and I have nothing against gay or lesbian marriage. But I don't have to vote for Obama because we agree on these issues.
Consider that Congress is currently controlled by Democrats. They aren't going to lose their majority in the House or Senate in this election, or most likely the next two. Their control of Congress guarantees we will never see the Senate confirmation of a far-right Supreme Court nominee who has proclaimed a willingness to overturn Roe v Wade. On gay rights issues, it takes 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify a Marriage amendment to the Constitution. In addition, the general concept of separation of powers and a built-in system of checks and balances render a President powerless to unilaterally alter the status quo on these matters.
Furthermore, consider that there were some of the most rabid right-wing, god-fearing, bible-thumping, jesus-quoting, proselytizing, christian-evangelical Republicans in control of Congress AND the White House for six full years (2000-2006) and they still couldn't muster the support necessary to pass any significant "game-changing" social issue legislation, get a single amendment to the constitution or even win minor federal bench appointments through the Senate Judiciary Committee!
The past decade of hyper-partisanship shows that its going to take AT LEAST a veto-proof majority of votes in Congress (on either side) before we ever see any socially relevant, precedent setting legislation or radical far-left or far-right appointments to the federal benches. Such a plurality at any time in the near term is a virtual impossibility due to gerry-mandered House legislative districts and the effectiveness of micro-targeting specific demographics in Congressional elections.
McCain and Obama both know we're not going to see any changes to standing law or the constitution in the next four years, if not forty. I think its shameful how both men continue to play the sides off one-another on the abortion issue, stirring up trouble between liberals and conservatives and stoking their respective political bases. It's a divisive and nonconstructive political strategy that should not be employed. Although neither candidate has the guts to say social issues are the least relevant items on their agenda because there are substantial voting blocs on both sides who consider the issue of paramount concern in elections.
Every four years, we get the pro-life folks on the conservative Christian right and the NOW crowd with the liberal left claiming that the next President has the power to drastically alter the makeup Supreme Court for the next twenty years. This is a far cry from the reality of the situation. Congress wields an enormous amount of power in the confirmation process and individual Senators have the ability to filibuster nominees or deny Judiciary Committee votes to Judges they deem unfavorable, i.e. Reagan nominee Robert Bork and Nixon nominees Clement Haynsworth, and G. Harrold Carswell.
It's also appropriate to note that the current swing vote on the court, Anthony Kennedy and the first woman Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor were both Reagan nominees. Justice David Souter was brought to the Court by George HW Bush and Paul Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford. My only point being that it's not easy to predict a Justice's judicial philosophies over the long-term.
Personally, I blame the influence of the Catholic Church and the far-right evangelical group thinking at super-churches for their intractable stance on women's choice. I believe both sides should be working towards a legislative compromise that forever ensures Roe v Wade, a woman's right to privacy and the freedom to choose. Religious groups should heed their own gospel, and allow women the control of their own destinies, for "We shall all stand before God to be judged;" - Romans 14:10.
Furthermore, what happens if abortions are outlawed? Will social conservatives who preach about saving babies then become fiscally liberal and advocate for the billions in additional health care and welfare costs associated with caring for and raising millions of low-income children? Are we to create a national abortion rescue orphanage to feed and clothe the countless unwanted children born to mothers who cannot possibly support them? The thought of overturning Roe v Wade is preposterous to me and other conscientious conservatives who shudder at the prospect of restricting a woman's right to privacy and the untenable welfare crisis to follow.
Call it a flip-flop, a moment of clarity/honesty or a shrewd political calculation leading up to the 2000 Presidential election, but McCain has said, "I'd love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
While he did vote to confirm Justice Ginsburg, McCain has a lengthy record opposing women's reproductive rights.
I also take offense with McCain's position on abstinence-only education, he's further right of Palin on that issue, it's worth noting that McCain and Obama both oppose a federal marriage amendment, and they share similar positions on stem-cell research.
Regardless, the next President is largely powerless to unanimously dictate social policies or do anything more detrimental than what Bush has already done. There is no clear and present danger to a woman's right to choose in this election, gays aren't going to lose any of their existing rights and this issue is moot for me.
I will admit that Obama has more of an appeal to me on this topic, though I sincerely desire that a McCain presidency leads to the relaxation of the anti-choice rhetoric coming from the current White House. However, if this was an Obama vs. Huckabee or an Obama vs. Palin election, Obama would look much more attractive to me as a candidate based on these issues.
Consider that Congress is currently controlled by Democrats. They aren't going to lose their majority in the House or Senate in this election, or most likely the next two. Their control of Congress guarantees we will never see the Senate confirmation of a far-right Supreme Court nominee who has proclaimed a willingness to overturn Roe v Wade. On gay rights issues, it takes 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify a Marriage amendment to the Constitution. In addition, the general concept of separation of powers and a built-in system of checks and balances render a President powerless to unilaterally alter the status quo on these matters.
Furthermore, consider that there were some of the most rabid right-wing, god-fearing, bible-thumping, jesus-quoting, proselytizing, christian-evangelical Republicans in control of Congress AND the White House for six full years (2000-2006) and they still couldn't muster the support necessary to pass any significant "game-changing" social issue legislation, get a single amendment to the constitution or even win minor federal bench appointments through the Senate Judiciary Committee!
The past decade of hyper-partisanship shows that its going to take AT LEAST a veto-proof majority of votes in Congress (on either side) before we ever see any socially relevant, precedent setting legislation or radical far-left or far-right appointments to the federal benches. Such a plurality at any time in the near term is a virtual impossibility due to gerry-mandered House legislative districts and the effectiveness of micro-targeting specific demographics in Congressional elections.
McCain and Obama both know we're not going to see any changes to standing law or the constitution in the next four years, if not forty. I think its shameful how both men continue to play the sides off one-another on the abortion issue, stirring up trouble between liberals and conservatives and stoking their respective political bases. It's a divisive and nonconstructive political strategy that should not be employed. Although neither candidate has the guts to say social issues are the least relevant items on their agenda because there are substantial voting blocs on both sides who consider the issue of paramount concern in elections.
Every four years, we get the pro-life folks on the conservative Christian right and the NOW crowd with the liberal left claiming that the next President has the power to drastically alter the makeup Supreme Court for the next twenty years. This is a far cry from the reality of the situation. Congress wields an enormous amount of power in the confirmation process and individual Senators have the ability to filibuster nominees or deny Judiciary Committee votes to Judges they deem unfavorable, i.e. Reagan nominee Robert Bork and Nixon nominees Clement Haynsworth, and G. Harrold Carswell.
It's also appropriate to note that the current swing vote on the court, Anthony Kennedy and the first woman Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor were both Reagan nominees. Justice David Souter was brought to the Court by George HW Bush and Paul Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford. My only point being that it's not easy to predict a Justice's judicial philosophies over the long-term.
Personally, I blame the influence of the Catholic Church and the far-right evangelical group thinking at super-churches for their intractable stance on women's choice. I believe both sides should be working towards a legislative compromise that forever ensures Roe v Wade, a woman's right to privacy and the freedom to choose. Religious groups should heed their own gospel, and allow women the control of their own destinies, for "We shall all stand before God to be judged;" - Romans 14:10.
Furthermore, what happens if abortions are outlawed? Will social conservatives who preach about saving babies then become fiscally liberal and advocate for the billions in additional health care and welfare costs associated with caring for and raising millions of low-income children? Are we to create a national abortion rescue orphanage to feed and clothe the countless unwanted children born to mothers who cannot possibly support them? The thought of overturning Roe v Wade is preposterous to me and other conscientious conservatives who shudder at the prospect of restricting a woman's right to privacy and the untenable welfare crisis to follow.
Call it a flip-flop, a moment of clarity/honesty or a shrewd political calculation leading up to the 2000 Presidential election, but McCain has said, "I'd love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
While he did vote to confirm Justice Ginsburg, McCain has a lengthy record opposing women's reproductive rights.
I also take offense with McCain's position on abstinence-only education, he's further right of Palin on that issue, it's worth noting that McCain and Obama both oppose a federal marriage amendment, and they share similar positions on stem-cell research.
Regardless, the next President is largely powerless to unanimously dictate social policies or do anything more detrimental than what Bush has already done. There is no clear and present danger to a woman's right to choose in this election, gays aren't going to lose any of their existing rights and this issue is moot for me.
I will admit that Obama has more of an appeal to me on this topic, though I sincerely desire that a McCain presidency leads to the relaxation of the anti-choice rhetoric coming from the current White House. However, if this was an Obama vs. Huckabee or an Obama vs. Palin election, Obama would look much more attractive to me as a candidate based on these issues.
On Everything Else...
McCain will let me keep my guns. No matter how big or scary they are. Obama would prefer that only criminals carry guns. Thankfully the Supreme Court disagreed with him.
McCain supports school choice and private school vouchers. Obama thinks we should pour more federal money into state school systems, paid for by higher taxes on corporations.
McCain will continue the Cuban embargo and hold the Castro regime accountable for its actions. Obama wants to normalize relations with the dictator at our doorstep.
McCain thinks that free trade without undue restrictions or tarriffs is good for the economy and we should open free trade agreements with all nations that are not security risks. Obama voted against CAFTA, wants to amend NAFTA and thinks we should add further restrictions on trade to appease his Union bosses and supporters in the environmental lobby.
McCain supports the Patriot Act and believes it helps protect Americans. Obama wants to re-write the Patriot Act and believes it harms American's civil liberties.
McCain thinks that affirmative action should be limited in its application. Obama supports affirmative action in colleges and government.
McCain supports school choice and private school vouchers. Obama thinks we should pour more federal money into state school systems, paid for by higher taxes on corporations.
McCain will continue the Cuban embargo and hold the Castro regime accountable for its actions. Obama wants to normalize relations with the dictator at our doorstep.
McCain thinks that free trade without undue restrictions or tarriffs is good for the economy and we should open free trade agreements with all nations that are not security risks. Obama voted against CAFTA, wants to amend NAFTA and thinks we should add further restrictions on trade to appease his Union bosses and supporters in the environmental lobby.
McCain supports the Patriot Act and believes it helps protect Americans. Obama wants to re-write the Patriot Act and believes it harms American's civil liberties.
McCain thinks that affirmative action should be limited in its application. Obama supports affirmative action in colleges and government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)