Apparently, someone leaked an Obama political questionnaire from 1996 to the Politico:
The questionnaire, which was provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent.A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out. It includes first-person comments such as: “I have not previously been a candidate.”
The campaign said his views have been consistent, and points out that his positions have always been more nuanced than can be conveyed in yes-or-no answers.
Ezra Klein retorts:
According to The Politico, these "liberal views could haunt Obama." Yes, particularly if major media outlets bring them up as documents worth taking seriously, rather than dismissing them as a pandering document published in the year of the Macarena. Say what you will about Obama, but with two books to his name and a speaking style that trends towards the endless, the guy hasn't given us an insufficient quantity of contemporary guidance as to his opinions, judgments, and qualms about public policy issues. It's true that, if the media wants to haunt him with old documents simplifying policy positions from a decade ago, they can. But don't use the passive voice. Let's not pretend someone wearing a sheet is a real live ghost.
The "too liberal" views in the questionnaire are support for a gun ban, support for a universal health care system, and opposition to the death penalty. For my part, I'd always assumed that these were Obama's views on the subject. Now I am pondering: are there really people out there who believe that a candidate's policy papers are what they would actually hammer out if they weren't running for office, and had simply been given the task of designing the system they thought would be best for the country?
I'm not even sure how much it matters what a candidate's real views are. Barak Obama probably believes, in his heart of hearts, that the death penalty should be abolished, and I agree with him. But the president doesn't really have any authority over the death penalty, and even if he did, strong public support for executions would almost certainly keep him from doing anything about it. Likewise, while I'm sure he wants to ban guns, Democrats have learned their lesson from Al Gore too well to consider doing much about it.
Health care is a different story, and there his views worry me--but they worried me before I knew he'd advocated a single-payer system back in 1996. His current healthcare plan is a pretty clear signal of the direction he wants to take the country's medical system in. Because whatever his true beliefs, if he campaigns on his current health care plan, and wins on his current health care plan, he's probably going to try to stick pretty close to his current health care plan. In politics, above all else, you go with what brung you to the dance.
Mostly, the reaction to this seems pretty tribal: we're not judging what he'll do, but "is he like me?" To be sure, that might be useful in assessing what he's like to do about all the policy problems we don't even know about yet--but not that useful, because who would have predicted Clintonian welfare reform or Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit? Anyway, I really can't spend a lot of time wondering whether politicians share, deep down, my core values. The number of politicians who agree with me on any major policy question can be counted on the toes of one hand.
So in short, it doesn't matter what he believes because he can't accomplish it anyway?
That's a strange argument for voting for someone.
I disagree with Megan, but more wanted to say that Ezra Klein's post (quoted by Megan) is lame. He's criticizing "the media" for publishing a story based on some Obama statements because they are "from 1996" and were "pandering"? Maybe Ezra could muster up some outrage at his own media outlet, where Adele Stan is publicizing Mike Huckabee's 1992 statement about AIDS? That's even older that Obama's 1996 statement! Time for Ezra to start criticizing Adele Stan!
Seriously, though, why shouldn't a 1996 statement be open for criticism? Ezra's position is just strange.
I would like to hear this answered by Obama himself. I am his supporter and I don't believe in capital punishment and I never understood how he with his background could be for it even in theory.
The problem here is that if he paints Clinton as cautious and attacks her for having compromised too much, he ought to be consistent and not pragmatic in principle. Or at least he needs to define where one draws the line.
The point is not his liberal positions, but whether he has tempered them to run for president. On the other hand she and Edwards have been on both sides of almost every issue, but that's old news.
The answer we will likely hear is this:
"Being fresh out of college, I took the position that most legal scholars like me had at the time and opposed the death penalty. After being elected I realized there are heinous and terrorism crimes where the capital punishment is applicable, and sat down with republicans and helped reform a broken system not out of ideology, but to reflect the views of the vast majority of the people who voted for me."
"who would have predicted Clintonian welfare reform or Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit"
gee. i dunno. anyone who read bush's electoral pledges -- in his 2000 convention speech, no less?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/02/eveningnews/main640572.shtml
because who would have predicted Clintonian welfare reform or Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit?
Well, welfare reform *was* vetoed and then was signed partially because it was running very well in the polls. The prescription drug benefit was similarly about the politics and the polling. Of course, that's your point-- politicians are restrained by wanting to be elected and re-elected.
'Moreover', there are people out there who are looking for a candidate whose beliefs and policies are in conjunction. And Unicorns also.
I always assumed that Bill Clinton was an atheist... but God bless you sounds oh so southern?
The response to health care by Obama (delivered by Matt) was:
His definition of "universal" is merely that unemployed and disabled should be able to get some too... wow! Now I am really curious about his stand on abortion. It's all soo liberal..
Since we are it - it is a real shame that the term liberal is used for government control and real liberals have to call themselves libertarian gesundheit! First come first serve when it comes to the Pavlovian brand conditioning?
Capitalism = a few rich people wanting to get richer at the expense of the many poor...
wow - how did this happen? Here is another one:
Liberal = freedom and equality through the form of government control
Who can do progressive or conservative?
I feel like Megan when it comes to politics. When it comes to Obama - I think he understands these dynamics of individuals quite well. Hillary potentially too but .. there is a but and I have a mental note that reminds me to stop writing negative things about her...
PS: I have never ever seen anything as pathetic as Christians supporting the death penalty and potentially torture while marching against abortion.
PS II: Even Ayn Rand was torn on the gun-control issue despite believing that one of the few roles of government was to enforce law and control violence.
What I like most about is: "I don't think it's very important.." Me too. But the death penalty practiced by Jesus makes me nervous... that and the farm bill!
Obama is a lightweight. Nothing in his past makes one think that he has the requisite experience and gravitas to be President. But he is benefiting from the feeling among many voters that, to borrow from George Will, Hillary Clinton has a computer chip where there should be a soul.
She seems cold, conniving, untrustworthy, power-hungry, wheras he seems warm and forthright. That, combined with his oratorical prowess, is what is getting him this far.
He will likely have a hard time, though, in the general election, if he has to face McCain
(or Giuliani). How many people can honestly say to themselves "I think Barak Obama is better suited to combat the threat from islamic terrorism and serve as commander in chief of the military in a time of war than Senator McCain"? Moderates and conservatives would almost certainly back McCain, leaving only the left for Obama.
Hugo ...
Conservative vs. Progressive, a couple of relatively new terms whose inherent meanings stripped of onus have retained their original ones. Yet, they both seem to be contradictory in what they phonetically imply.
Conservative - a political philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Progressive - one that believes in political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
It would seem to me that a group claiming to be "progressive" wouldn't necessarily be the one to impose draconian regulations and tariffs and one called "conservative" (I imagine "conserving" the constitution, as opposed to interpreting it "liberally" as it were) wouldn't be the one fighting for the individual to make his own decisions at home, business, and most other arenas.
You also have to add the fact in that so far, the so-called "conservatives" seem to think it's perfectly fine to throw out almost 1000 years of legal tradition when it comes to such things as suspects' rights.
Hugo,
It's not that hard to grasp, whether or not you agree with it is a different question.
The death penalty is given to those who deserve it. I don't think there are people arguing for a universal death penalty that puts every criminal to death.
Waterboarding and other such techniques are given to those to deserve it. I don't think there are people arguing we should waterboard every terrorist or suspicious person picked up in a battle. I feel uncomfortable about it, but I think when you get someone who you know is a high value target, who tells you to their face they want to kill you and have plans to kill you and others, waterboarding is a necessary evil. I don't think we should do around shooting people with guns, but then again, if they are threatening to shoot me, you better believe I'll shoot first.
On to your final point...
Babies do not deserve to be aborted. Mothers do not deserve the right to abort them for convienence, mental health, emotional sanity, future income potential, future education potential, etc. I think that if the mother will very likely die from carrying the baby then an abortion should be available as a last result. But first it seems appropriate to see if its possible to carry the baby as far to term as possible and do a c-section in so far as the mother's life is not needlessly put in danger.
All three of these positions can be reasoned out by rational people. You may disagree with them, and that's fine. But I don't see how insulting someone who claims to want to protect life should therefore mean they have to protect every life at all costs and for all reasons.
That's a leap of logic you need to explain a little more if you want to convince me I should change my ways.
grumpy,
What suspects rights were thrown out contrary to 1000 years of legal tradition?
Couple of quick examples that are brought up frequently...How did legal tradition handle German spies during World War 2? How did legal tradition handle confederate supporters in the north during the civil war?
That's just going back 50 and 150 years. I'm not sure where this 1000 year comment comes from. I'm sure there is a lot of "legal tradition" over the last thousand years that we'd want nothing to do with in our society. Please tell me which nation from 1000AD or even 1400AD you'd prefer or legal system to resemble?
Sam
All three of these positions can be reasoned out by rational people.
Oh yes - I agree. I was referring to some Christians who do not see a contradiction in... Jesus - you know!
Here is my quote: Christians supporting the death penalty and potentially torture while marching against abortion.
I can see how other religions might be in support of that, like Satanists, but God forbid not Christians. Thou shall not kill has been stated loud and clear - thou shall not abort a fetus of a few weeks weeks must be part of the new new testament? Any adult, criminal or not, is obviously alive compared to some semen who have crossed the bar? Jesus would not support killing an adult? If there were a 0.3% chance that the death penalty could kill an innocent - he would not support it. He would point to many other democracies who function just fine without it and without higher homicide rates.
Yes - we could argue over the pros and cons rationally. But what about religiously?
Hugo,
I am a Christian. I believe there are rational reasons for my belief, but they are not necessarily easily translatable to others. It's personal, which is the way all religious conversion should be. You can't convert someone through reason alone, ultimately it does take some faith, but I can also hold rational viewpoints for having my faith.
Back to the subject. I don't think it's clear what Jesus would say or do regarding the death penalty. He after all received it and to a believing Christian it goes without saying he could have prevented it if he desired.
As far as abortion, Jesus had the uttermost love and compassion for children. He did not love selfish greedy people. Generally people get abortions for selfish reasons do they not? I'm not saying they are terrible bad people. I do things I ought not to do for selfish reasons. But that doesn't make my actions correct and I think that Jesus, who considered a man to have committed adultery if he so much as looked at a woman wantingly would agree.
Additionally "thou shalt not kill" is not equally clear. Thou shalt not kill is followed by several hundred pages of the Jews killing.
That does not refut the original commandment. If you go back to the Torah, it actually uses the verb for murder, as in the criminal act of killing, and not simply to kill.
I suppose if you want to be even more uncharitable in the interpretation of others beliefs you could suggest that the scripture simply says, "thou shalt not kill" but it doesn't specify what you shouldn't kill. So butchers are in violation, and so are pest control people and people involve in car accidents for that matter. Clearly intent and circumstances apply...
>>“Do you support … capital punishment?” one question asked.
“No,” the 1996 Obama campaign typed, without explaining his answer in the space provided.
“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.
“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/C5Ph
BARACK OBAMA'S ANSWERS as found on
choose your candidate washington post
CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/?
BARACK OBAMA SAYS:
TOP PRIORITIES:
My top priority as president will be ending this war
in Iraq, a war that should have never been authorized
and never been waged. In doing so, I will work to keep
our country safe from terrorists and to restore
American credibility around the world. Providing
universal health care to the 47 million Americans who
currently do not have it will be another top priority
of my administration, as will combating global warming
and putting our country on the path toward energy
independence. But all of the issues that I have
focused on in this campaign -- whether it's creating a
21st century education system and fighting poverty or
achieving comprehensive immigration reform and
strengthening our economy -- are vitally important and
must be prioritized by the next president. And all of
these issues share one thing in common: in order to
fully address them, we have to do more than change
political parties. We have to fundamentally change our
politics and transform the way business is done in
Washington.
GUNS:
Yes, I do think that reasonable gun control measures
reduces violent crime and saves lives. I respect the
constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. But
we can't deny that gun violence has taken the lives of
too many Americans. I believe that through
common-sense measures, we can keep guns from those who
may pose a threat, while also protecting the rights of
legitimate hunters and sportsmen.
GUN CONTROL:
I support reasonable, common-sense measures to limit
such occurrences. I would close the gun-show loophole
and require mandatory background checks on purchasers
at gun shows. That loophole has been exploited by
everyone from foreign terrorists to the Columbine High
School shooters. Closing it would not impair the
rights of hunters and other lawful gun owners. I also
believe that we should make the expired federal
Assault Weapons Ban permanent. Those weapons belong on
a foreign battlefield, not on our streets. Finally, I
support making guns in this country child proof. This
is, again, a common-sense solution: guns and kids
don't mix.
Maybe we should come up with some sort of shorthand like EKPWTL (Ezra Klein’s Post Was Totally Lame) whenever she posts about him because lameness seems to be the rule.
Actually after having read the Prospect piece that Al linked to and compared it to what Huckabee actually said, maybe we should just say TPPITL (That Prospect Piece Is Totally Lame) at the beginning of our comments whenever she quotes from any of their pieces.
The number of politicians who agree with me on any major policy question can be counted on the toes of one hand. - Megan
Don't you ever wonder whether you're using this as a kind of insurance policy and a way to avoid actually committing to political figures and movements that are broad enough to entail the risk that they might actually accomplish something? I mean, obviously nobody should really have to bastardize their intellectual convictions just in order to join some mainstream or other. But there were a lot of comfortable lefties in ideological cocoons back in the '80s, who had adopted a kind of monastic equanimity towards the fact that no politicians agreed with them on major policy questions and considered it a kind of badge of honor. That attitude had to be crushed before the Democrats could regain political power. I sometimes wonder whether you're putting yourself in the role adopted by someone like Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal, who eschews any pretense of interest in whether his convictions could ever be implemented politically.
Danielle Clarke:
You wish to close the gun-show loophole, perhaps without understanding what it is. Background checks are already mandatory for any firearm purchases from licensed dealers, at gun shows or anywhere else. Private sales, that is, sales from one private individual to another, do not require the private seller to run a background check--doing so is in fact often not possible as NCIC and other background check resources are often not available to private citizens. If a person is in the business of selling firearms, that person must obtain a federal firearms license and run background checks on all sales. The failure to obtain a FFL when acting as a dealer is a big federal crime. The "gun show loophole," then, is more accurately called the "private sale loophole." There is nothing special about non-dealer sales that occur at gunshows: these types of sales can occur anywhere within most states and are probably advertised in your local newspaper.
The crux of most non-absolute gun control arguments is what exactly "reasonable, common sense measures" means in practice. Many of us recognize that measures like the Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to affect the lethality of available firearms, and was a feel-good policy that outlawed cosmetic features of certain weapons. At any rate, simply declaring that you are for "reasonable common sense measures" doesn't settle much of anything, I'm sure the NRA would agree that they support what they consider reasonable common sense measures, too!
"Likewise, while I'm sure he wants to ban guns,"
What?
The Presidency of the United States is obviously the only job that requires no background in the administration of a large organization to get. Think about it, in the military, to get a certain job, you had to have another job previously of leading people in a lesser capacity. To be a battalion commander, you had to be a company commander first. Now think about this, would you go to a doctor that had not finished medical school or their residency, just because he was convincing in his speech. The presidency is a much larger risk to put ourselves into as a nation than a doctors office. But people will vote for a president based on what they say, not on a record of success. I will venture to say that Barack Obama may make a president someday, but to put him out with the likes of other world leaders, that would be foolish. Has he any experience managing a very large and complex organization, to include a military and security system. I would venture to say he has never been to Iraq one time, yet he would say he would pull out without condition. That is foolishness, and anyone that would say it needs to prepare their concience for an atrocity. Or better yet, we as a people need to demand a little bit more of an answer. People demand more fidelity from a car warranty than they do a candidate. And yes I am in Iraq, and have been here over a year. I do not want anyone currently advocating an immediate drawdown anywhere but in the Congress or in the Senate, where they are generally of no real importance. We need a leader that can manage forces and groups, not one that can give a good speech. We all should ask and demand a certain job history. I don't care what your vision for the future is if you have no way of making it come to light.
The Presidency of the United States is obviously the only job that requires no background in the administration of a large organization to get. Think about it, in the military, to get a certain job, you had to have another job previously of leading people in a lesser capacity. To be a battalion commander, you had to be a company commander first. Now think about this, would you go to a doctor that had not finished medical school or their residency, just because he was convincing in his speech. The presidency is a much larger risk to put ourselves into as a nation than a doctors office. But people will vote for a president based on what they say, not on a record of success. I will venture to say that Barack Obama may make a president someday, but to put him out with the likes of other world leaders, that would be foolish. Has he any experience managing a very large and complex organization, to include a military and security system. I would venture to say he has never been to Iraq one time, yet he would say he would pull out without condition. That is foolishness, and anyone that would say it needs to prepare their concience for an atrocity. Or better yet, we as a people need to demand a little bit more of an answer. People demand more fidelity from a car warranty than they do a candidate. And yes I am in Iraq, and have been here over a year. I do not want anyone currently advocating an immediate drawdown anywhere but in the Congress or in the Senate, where they are generally of no real importance. We need a leader that can manage forces and groups, not one that can give a good speech. We all should ask and demand a certain job history. I don't care what your vision for the future is if you have no way of making it come to light.
See people he hasnt even got in the gov yet and wants too take our guns away wake up people.
Does he believe in Jesus, and will he change this nations Heritage of in "GOD WE TRUST" , to something else??? WE had better wake up AMERICA
Americans are going to vote for the most polished candidate, in speech and otherwise, which only amounts to rhetoric, anyway. Many are also going to vote based on what they are going to get out of the deal given what the candidates promise in return for their vote. And some, who shouldn't be voting at all, will cast their ballot for either one based on skin color. Experience, qualifications and the ability to lead are mere afterthoughts. In the meantime, the concepts of liberty and self-reliance seem irrelevant, like an old, worn out sock. One might think so, since nary a word on both has been uttered by either candidate.
But that’s where America has gone, down the road of dependency and into the nanny state. And while all this is going on, the Hillary diehards, along with the supporters of Ron Paul will no doubt commiserate over who the real candidate ought to be but will succumb to the whimsy of their party and vote accordingly. Conscience, by the way, has nothing to do with it. If it did, the inevitable results this November would surprise even the hard core skeptic. But that’s not to be.
But clear, careful thought on these matters does take its toll eventually, and one must concede, (or admit to if they are truly honest) that the concept of electing anyone to the predencey without reasonable experience is a perplexing notion, to say the least. But what’s even more confounding is how anyone can buy into Obama’s populist rhetoric which in effect directly equates to higher taxes on the middle class and poor, not to mention bigger government and a greater expansion of its rule over their personal lives. And anyone who doesn’t see through it all; that Obama is in fact a socialist must be either blind or dead. The sad part is that some Americans really want the kind of government Obama represents.
But that’s what he’s really about. That is, the state knows best. I don’t, but it does, and he certainly does too, which is why he, owing to his eloquence in matters in speech, seems to have all the answers to America’s ills. But clear thinking would also encourage one to accept the reality that the pursuit of power with the assumption of leadership is really what it’s all about. Power is what Hillary and her pet squirrel, Bill, wanted all along, (still do) and that’s certainly what Obama is seeking, as well.
McCain is no exception, either, by the way. He’s simply a liberal in conservative cloth with his own designs of occupying the oval office and after having settled in comfortably, the hopes of a long-overdue respite from the political struggle. In other words, a long nap.
In the meantime, however, the real lovers of liberty and less government control, some of them happen to be Republican, have really no where to turn in November, except to hold their respective noses and vote for the least destructive candidate, McCain.
But who would argue against the fact that, when government grows bigger and expands its reign, we, as individuals become smaller and in that process comes the diminution of personal liberty seceded to the state along with the additional recompense, another pound of flesh off the feckless pursuits of a passive, yielding citizenry.
Don’t fear, however, a solution is at hand. I propose a new party, I call it, “The Preservative Party” with a platform based on strict adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and with provisions that those in ‘power’ serve us and will be held accountable, (if not arrested and incarcerated) if they deem to divert from or attempt to subvert the principles of the founding fathers with the machinations that only derive from the lust of power and authority. If the Libertarians can’t pull it off, maybe the Preservatives can? Would this form of government make so called “leaders” irrelevant? Interesting to think about…
The bottom line is, it’s a bit frustrating to imagine why Americans will vote and ultimately elect a candidate, Obama, one with little experience who aims to expand government.
As for McCain, after it’s all said and done, he’ll do what all good soldiers do, just simply fade away.
Americans are going to vote for the most polished candidate, in speech and otherwise, which only amounts to rhetoric, anyway. Many are also going to vote based on what they are going to get out of the deal given what the candidates promise in return for their vote. And some, who shouldn't be voting at all, will cast their ballot for either one based on skin color. Experience, qualifications and the ability to lead are mere afterthoughts. In the meantime, the concepts of liberty and self-reliance seem irrelevant, like an old, worn out sock. One might think so, since nary a word on both has been uttered by either candidate.
But that’s where America has gone, down the road of dependency and into the nanny state. And while all this is going on, the Hillary diehards, along with the supporters of Ron Paul will no doubt commiserate over who the real candidate ought to be but will succumb to the whimsy of their party and vote accordingly. Conscience, by the way, has nothing to do with it. If it did, the inevitable results this November would surprise even the hard core skeptic. But that’s not to be.
But clear, careful thought on these matters does take its toll eventually, and one must concede, (or admit to if they are truly honest) that the concept of electing anyone to the predencey without reasonable experience is a perplexing notion, to say the least. But what’s even more confounding is how anyone can buy into Obama’s populist rhetoric which in effect directly equates to higher taxes on the middle class and poor, not to mention bigger government and a greater expansion of its rule over their personal lives. And anyone who doesn’t see through it all; that Obama is in fact a socialist must be either blind or dead. The sad part is that some Americans really want the kind of government Obama represents.
But that’s what he’s really about. That is, the state knows best. I don’t, but it does, and he certainly does too, which is why he, owing to his eloquence in matters in speech, seems to have all the answers to America’s ills. But clear thinking would also encourage one to accept the reality that the pursuit of power with the assumption of leadership is really what it’s all about. Power is what Hillary and her pet squirrel, Bill, wanted all along, (still do) and that’s certainly what Obama is seeking, as well.
McCain is no exception, either, by the way. He’s simply a liberal in conservative cloth with his own designs of occupying the oval office and after having settled in comfortably, the hopes of a long-overdue respite from the political struggle. In other words, a long nap.
In the meantime, however, the real lovers of liberty and less government control, some of them happen to be Republican, have really no where to turn in November, except to hold their respective noses and vote for the least destructive candidate, McCain.
But who would argue against the fact that, when government grows bigger and expands its reign, we, as individuals become smaller and in that process comes the diminution of personal liberty seceded to the state along with the additional recompense, another pound of flesh off the feckless pursuits of a passive, yielding citizenry.
Don’t fear, however, a solution is at hand. I propose a new party, I call it, “The Preservative Party” with a platform based on strict adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and with provisions that those in ‘power’ serve us and will be held accountable, (if not arrested and incarcerated) if they deem to divert from or attempt to subvert the principles of the founding fathers with the machinations that only derive from the lust of power and authority. If the Libertarians can’t pull it off, maybe the Preservatives can? Would this form of government make so called “leaders” irrelevant? Interesting to think about…
The bottom line is, it’s a bit frustrating to imagine why Americans will vote and ultimately elect a candidate, Obama, one with little experience who aims to expand government.
As for McCain, after it’s all said and done, he’ll do what all good soldiers do, just simply fade away.