I was polled last night. Yes, it happens. I spent half an hour on the telephone with a representative of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The results will be made public in a few days. One question stands out. They asked, “Do you know what Barack Obama’s religion is?” Don’t you get the feeling that you can already write the post-election analysis if Obama loses? “A nation still unable to shake its legacy of racism and discrimination ... a nation so xenophobic about anyone with a foreign-sounding name could not be elected ... Obama could not correct the misimpression that he was a Muslim.” It would almost be worth having Obama win to avoid the nauseating analysis that will certainly follow his loss. But not quite. It is hard to think of any issue dear to the hearts of conservatives on which Barack Obama is not planted firmly on the other side — the power of diplomacy vis-a-vis aggressors, the proper care and feeding of teachers unions, the threat of terrorism, affirmative action, the importance of free trade, immigration reform — I could go on. If elected, President Obama, arm in arm with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, would be in a position to do serious damage to the country on a number of fronts. His convention speech removed any doubt that he is an orthodox, big — no, huge — government liberal. To focus on one important area: Barack Obama could rewrite our health care system. On any number of occasions during the primaries, Obama offered that if he were designing a health care system from scratch, he would choose a single-payer option. But since we’ve got this employment-based system, he has chosen to reform what we have instead — or so he claims. Yet if his reforms are enacted, they will drive private insurance out of the market entirely. Obama has embraced the “play or pay” concept first offered by Michael Dukakis. In order to solve the problem of the 47 million uninsured, Obama would require all but the smallest businesses to either offer health insurance that meets government guidelines, or pay a tax that would finance government-provided health insurance. The Obama plan doesn’t offer many specifics but most analysts agree that the Commonwealth Fund’s health proposal is nearly identical. It would impose a 7 percent tax. Since the tax would almost certainly be less onerous to employers than expensive health care plans, more and more businesses would opt for the tax, forcing private insurers to raise rates even more. Once the stampede got going it would be impossible to stop. The private insurance market would collapse. What the U.S. would have then would be pretty much Medicare for everyone — or single payer. Around the world, single-payer systems keep costs down by rationing care. A Cato Institute study found that in Norway, health care is funded through general tax revenues (taxes consume 45 percent of GDP). But Norwegians commonly travel abroad to avoid long waits. “Approximately 280,000 Norwegians are estimated to be waiting for care on any given day (out of a population of just 4.6 million).” In Britain, “delays in receiving treatment are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer patients considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered.” Even in France, whose system gets high marks from international raters, bureaucratic rigidity contributed to the deaths of 15,000 elderly people in the heat wave of 2003. McCain’s health care reforms put the focus where it belongs — on increasing market competition and consumer choice. It was government that saddled us with this cumbersome employer-based system in the first place (by making contributions to health plans tax deductible for employers during World War II). Though arguably still the best in the world (where do sheiks and princes go when they’re really sick?), our system does little to encourage economy (due to the third-party payer problem), discourages competition, leaves millions without coverage because plans are too expensive, discourages job switching, and suffers from needless complexity. McCain’s plan would give a $2,500 tax exemption to individuals and $5,000 to families to purchase their own insurance. The remainder would go into a health savings account. McCain’s reform would permit consumers to purchase plans across state lines, thus increasing competition. Both plans represent “change.” If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid succeed, they may change our health care system for the worse, and permanently.
It’s only a race because Obama didn’t pick Hillary
Since the Republican Party introduced Gov. Palin to the electorate, the polls have shifted from a 6 percent Obama lead to a 2 percent McCain advantage. It’s conceivable that Hillary’s women now have a woman to vote for while waiting for Hillary in 2012. I felt all along that Obama could have clinched it had he chosen Hillary. Keep in mind that counting Michigan and Florida, Hillary received 13,403,104 votes to Obama’s 13,460,645. Call it a miscalculation or Michelle [Obama]’s dislike for Hillary; the result is that Obama missed an opportunity to put the election out of McCain’s reach. Something similar to this occurred in 1960, when John Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson over the objection of his brother Bobby. So Jack carried the South and narrowly beat Nixon. There is still two months to go and anything can happen. It’s just that if Obama had used his noodle and wasn’t influenced by his wife, his inauguration could have been assured before Nov. 4. HUGH CARVILLE Johnstown
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.
Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.
By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.
Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.
(CNN) – The Obama campaign is preparing rolling out a new line of “faith merchandise” – the latest move in an ambitious effort to win over religious voters.
“Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….” says Obama Deputy Director of Religious Affairs Paul Monteiro in an e-mail obtained by the Beliefnet Web site.
“Believers for Barack rally signs and bumper stickers, along with all Pro-Family Pro-Obama merchandise, are appropriate for people of all faith backgrounds. We'll soon be rolling out merchandise for other religious groups and denominations, but I wanted to get this out to you without delay,” he adds.
Both campaigns have been making a major push for the Catholic vote, which has gone to the winning presidential campaign in every race since 1976, except Al Gore’s 2000 White House bid.
Beliefnet reported that "Clergy for Change" and "Pro-Israel Pro-Obama" merchandise will soon be offered.
Last week, the Obama campaign began to offer merchandise with a slightly more worldly appeal: New York’s Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week marked the debut of clothing and accessories by some of the nation’s top designers. The collection, announced earlier this summer, includes totes, shirts and other merchandise designed by about two dozen major industry names, including Narciso Rodriguez, Zac Posen and Vera Wang.
You have GOT to be kidding me ?? This guy votes in favor of killing children via partial birth abortions - then wants to roll out "Pro Family" and "Catholic" merchandise?? What a damn hypocrite.
Even if I WAS leaning Obama, this would disgust me.
Re Sept. 10 Richard Cohen column, “Obama’s too ‘cool’ even to defend self”: I am an admirer of Richard Cohen, but his dismay over the seeming cool of Barack Obama in the face of barbaric Republican manipulation is a serious misread of the situation. Instead of facing off against the Big Lie, reminiscent of Mein Kampf, Barack Obama presents wisdom, depth and maturity. It took two terrible wars on home ground to bring Western Europeans to some semblance of adulthood. Intense suffering tends to deepen the psyche and bring it to self-awareness. Americans have missed those 20th century despoliations at home and have endured in lesser moments a more neurotic strain of suffering such as obesity, drug addiction and house foreclosure. It would seem our species needs the starkest contrast between personal needs and interests and the facts of manipulative power. Obama has emerged from a portion of the population whose suffering has produced an awareness of actual conditions and actual needs. If he lacks stridency in the face of mindless allegation, his graceful articulation and clear insight would not have it otherwise. He knows in his heart and understands in his intellect just how duped Americans have been, and he does not choose to rub it in. ART WILLIS Quaker Street
Hey Art don't forget to credit Obama with getting the 14 million for his buddy Rezko who's going to jail for fraud and the fact that since he's been a senator in Illinois and in the US Congress he's actually accomplished nothing.
When Barack Obama related John Mc-Cain’s position on “change” to “you can put lipstick on a pig,” he was obviously calling Sarah Palin a pig and insulting Palin and all women [Sept. 11 Gazette]. Barack retorted that it was a manufactured linkage that would be like “catnip for the media.” I think Obama’s response is an insult to all cats, especially those felines with drug issues. How could any caring person compare unfortunate cats to the media? Where will it end? RICHARD REED Scotia
Racist stereotypes have no place in presidential campaign
Your Sept. 14 issue contained a most disturbing AP article [“Forum sells Obama waffles with racial stereotype”]. It hits at the heart of what I was led to believe in the 1950s and ’60s — that all people have worth and that no one should be held up to ridicule; respect is to be adhered to even in the midst of a campaign. Raised in a conservative, Catholic, Republican family in the 1950s, but educated in women’s Catholic schools and colleges where service to the needy was emphasized, I became a civil rights activist in the 1960s. I managed a Republican campaign in Guilderland in the ’70s that even then left a bad taste due to the tactics employed. According to the article, socially conservative public policy groups (American Values and Focus on the Family Action) co-sponsored a conference at which they sold a $10 “waffle mix,” on which Barack Obama was depicted in demeaning stereotypes, much like Aunt Jemima; in an Arab dress; and in a stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for “Open Border Fiesta Waffles.” The article said the mix sold quickly by a lobbying arm of the Family Research Council. The conference had high-profi le speakers such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have been proponents of a return to traditional “values.” If the things depicted in this writing are American values, then I don’t want any part of them. I find this despicable. I worked, walked in marches and sat in sit-ins for equal rights. I have worked in schools, both urban and rural, where the educational opportunities have only recently begun to approach equality. I cannot back a candidate who will countenance his or her party having conferences where this kind of thing is considered their values. They are not mine, and I am an American — my family came here in the early 1700s. BARBARA I. QUACKENBUSH Altamont
DENVER -- How does Barack Obama lure wealthy donors to a big-money fundraiser in Hollywood? Bring in Barbra Streisand as the headline performer. The Oscar-winning singer and actress was to perform Tuesday night on Obama's behalf in Beverly Hills.
It was to be a two-step evening with a reception and dinner costing $28,500 a person followed by a later event featuring Streisand at $2,500 a ticket.
Obama was flying to Los Angeles after an appearance Tuesday morning in a Denver suburb.
The wealthy fundraiser comes on a day when the crisis in the U.S. economy remained an urgent issue for many Americans. Monday's sharp sell-off left the Dow Jones industrials and the Standard & Poor's 500 index down by more 4 percent, eroding the value of individual retirement and investment accounts, for example.
Streisand originally backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton but switched to Obama when he emerged as the Democratic presidential nominee.
Streisand has been outspoken in criticizing John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket.
"This calculated, cynical ploy to pull away a small percentage of Hillary's women voters from Barack Obama will not work," Streisand wrote on her Web page. "We are not that stupid!"
"I believe John McCain chose Gov. Palin because he truly believes that women who supported Hillary — an experienced, brilliant, lifelong public servant — would vote for him because his vice president has two X chromosomes," Streisand said. "McCain's selection of Gov. Palin is a transparent and irresponsible decision all in the name of trying to win this election."
Obama is financing his presidential race with private contributions after abandoning a pledge to take public financing capped at $84 million. His campaign announced Sunday it had collected $66 million in August, a fundraising record for any presidential candidate in a monthlong period.
By comparison, McCain raised $47 million in August, a personal best for his campaign as well. After claiming the GOP nomination, McCain accepted the $84 million in taxpayer funds allotted the public financing system for the race.
Logged
