February 20, 2008

COMPROMISE

Lots of people agree that Obama is low on substance. But no one can phrase it like Lileks:

On the radio today Medved and Hewitt both asked Obama supporters to call and say why they were supporting their man. Specifics, please. The replies were rather indistinct. He would end the division and bring us together by encouraging us all to talk about common problems, after which we would compromise. He will give us hope by giving us hope: for many, the appeal has the magical perfect logic of a tautology. It's a nice dream. But compromise is impossible when you have a fundamental differences about the proper way to solve a problem. I believe we can achieve a fair society by taking away your house and giving it to someone else. I disagree. It is my house. Then let us agree to give away half of your house. Compromise! But that is not a compromise. You have taken half my house. We have compromised on your behalf with those who would have taken it all. Let us not return to the politics of division. There are strangers living in my spare bedroom. Then we have truly come together. Look, this isnít a matter on which we can compromise, because we have conflicting premises. Youíre pretending matter and anti-matter have the same relationship as Coke and Pepsi. They donít.

He goes on with more awesomeness. My pal Amritas once said that Lileks is the Mark Twain of our time. I love that. I just love how Lileks writes.

(You did say that, right, Amritas? Did I mix you up with Bunker?)

Posted by Sarah at February 20, 2008 01:36 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Sorry, I can't remmeber if I wrote that or not. It sounds familiar, but I might have read it on Bunker's site. Unfortunately, his site has been ... taken over:

http://www.bunkermulligan.net/

It still lives on at archive dot org, though.

I am sure of one thing, though: it's an honor to have my name and Bunker's on the same line!

Posted by: Amritas at February 20, 2008 04:48 PM

I like him for his policy. I rarely listen to what candidates say, it's all going to be smarmy feel good crap anyway. I went to their websites and read about their stances on major issues. His plans seem thorough and deep. Unfortunately, the majority of the American voting public seems to like the feel-good taglines rather than caring about substance.

One of his positions is that we must confront the growing threat in Pakistan, which is where the Al Qaeda training camps are and is one of the main reasons we have not yet succeeded in Afghanistan. He also plans to expand the military (including the National Guard) in an effort to meet the growing demands of keeping the region and our nation safe. He has a list of things to do for veterans to make sure they are taken care of during transition and thereafter.

For more about Pakistan, you can look here: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php. It'll auto-play a speech, so you might want to stop it so you can read what he's saying. The Pakistan info is about halfway down.

If you want to see how he stands on other subjects, you can go to www.barackobama.com and click on issues. That will pull up a list of major issues from which you can choose. Once you click on an issue, if you don't see enough substance in the summary, scroll down and click on "read the plan" for an adobe file of more information.

You might disagree with where he stands on a lot of issues (and knowing you I'm sure you will :) ), but I think it's unfair hype to say he's short on substance.

And just as he's not responsible for a random idiot displaying a Che Guevara flag, he's not responsible for the ignorance of some of his supporters, either. From reading all of his positions and plans, I don't get the feeling that "compromise" is a major part of his policy plan. Moreso than the right wing, but not as much as it's made out to be here.

Posted by: Sis B at February 20, 2008 06:29 PM