Obama vs. history

[Tigermike 3,039]

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

Obama vs. history

Rising star should explain economic views

December 19, 2006

There are darn good reasons that millions of Americans are in full swoon over Sen. Barack Obama and the prospect that the Illinois Democrat will seek the White House in 2008. Just as in the 1976 presidential race, when Jimmy Carter's vow to be an honest, moral leader fit the Zeitgeist of a nation disillusioned by Watergate and Vietnam, Obama's message of outreach and hope make him uniquely attractive to a public weary of our nasty, polarized political debate.

But his appeal is not just of a surface variety. Obama's books and speeches offer a seductive vision of a better America, one in which the energy we spend fighting each other is devoted to actually solving problems. He calls for acknowledging the best arguments on all sides of a debate and resisting the impulse to demonize those with whom we disagree.

No one else talks like this. Instead, we see Karl Rove implying that voting for Democrats is traitorous, or Obama's fellow Chicago Democrat – Rep. Rahm Emanuel – gleefully urging Republicans to perform anatomical impossibilities on election night after Democrats regained control of the House.

For all these reasons and more, Obama's emergence as a national figure is welcome. Nevertheless, at some point – say, before he seeks the presidency – Obama must offer far more substantive explanations of his stands on the issues, especially the economy.

There is a fight going on now for the soul of the Democratic Party. One side, led by former President Bill Clinton, says the answer to rising economic insecurity lies in improving and subsidizing worker training to make it easier to switch careers, making health insurance far more portable and creating a better safety net for those temporarily displaced in our churning economy.

The other side, led by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, says the answer is protectionism and punishing U.S. companies that choose to invest or expand abroad or do not pay their workers enough.

With his opposition to many trade deals and his Wal-Mart bashing, Obama has tentatively allied himself with the latter camp, all the while depicting himself as a thoughtful centrist. But there is nothing thoughtful about ignoring the vast evidence that free trade and relatively unfettered capitalism have made America prosperous – or arguing that a company whose low prices help millions of families make ends meet and which has no trouble filling jobs should abandon its business model and become an adjunct welfare agency.

If Barack Obama is sincere when he says it is imperative to have honest, good-faith debates on the big issues, at some point he will need to explain how on earth he concluded that governments do a better job than the free market in creating jobs and wealth.

In his research, he might want to ponder this place called Europe. It's a continent-sized example of how protectionism and government regulation kill jobs, depress growth and hurt most the people such policies are supposed to help.

How about it, senator? Any interest in a road trip?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...ed19bottom.html

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Since our incomes taxes go to pay the interest on the national debt, I feel we have right to deny monies to companies that don't keep the jobs here.

The other side, led by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, says the answer is protectionism and punishing U.S. companies that choose to invest or expand abroad or do not pay their workers enough.

With his opposition to many trade deals and his Wal-Mart bashing, Obama has tentatively allied himself with the latter camp, all the while depicting himself as a thoughtful centrist. But there is nothing thoughtful about ignoring the vast evidence that free trade and relatively unfettered capitalism have made America prosperous – or arguing that a company whose low prices help millions of families make ends meet and which has no trouble filling jobs should abandon its business model and become an adjunct welfare agency.

I say punish the heck out of 'em and bar their goods from entering the country, period. The only thing allowed from China should be food exclusively made in China for Chinese restaurants. Otherwise, they can keep their little fury key rings made from dog and cat fur. It's time for the people to take their country away from corporate interests and bulldoze K Street.

[Tigermike 3,039]