Town Square

Post a New Topic

For 1/7 Undecided Voters: Why I am Voting Against Obama.

Original post made by Perspective, Midtown, on Nov 1, 2008

Follows is a series of postings intended for the Undecided voter. I read that 1/7th of you are still undecided.

You are going to decide this nation’s future. If you have already decided to vote for Barack or for McCain, don’t waste your time reading this. It is intense and thorough, purposefully full of facts and questions to explain my points. It is not for lightweights who want to vote on emotion, symbolism, party lines, or to “feel good”. I have tried hard to keep hypberbole and inflammatory language out of this.

No one reason would be enough for me to oppose him. Frankly, just a few of these reasons would just make him interesting and broad-minded. Before I knew anything about him, other than the fact that he was black and a Democrat, I figured he could be good for America, if nothing else BECAUSE he was black and it would finally put to rest this victim/racism mentality we indoctrinate our black population with. I was particularly impressed when he said that if he loses, it won’t be because of racism. Apparently that, along with many of his initial statements, has been thrown away by him, given how often he and his surrogates have now accused us who are against him of being racist.

But, the more I learned about him, the more the pattern emerged.., He as POTUS, combined with a Supermajority Congress run by Pelosi and Reid..well, my hair turns grayer thinking about the outcome of him as President. I remember Carter. This will be worse because at least you could criticize Carter and not be called a racist. Now we are muzzled by the fear of being labeled. Ok, on to the rest of the postings. I am going to put them in a series for easier chewing.

Comments (45)

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:03 am

We’ll start in chronological order, with questions of background, cultural and political identity.

1) Unstable background..abandoned by 2 fathers and a mother. Ok, no big deal..continue

2) Years in an Islamic school in Indonesia. Not in itself bad at all…but why does he never, ever talk about it? Where are the friends and teachers from those years?

3) Changing his name to Barack from his given name of Barry in college after a visit to Pakistan, why?

4) Studying and approving of Alinsky, andavowed Revolutionary socialist who wrote
Rules for Radicals ( look him up in Wiki). Was the founding ideology of ACORN.

5) He is an Attorney..Nothing wrong with attorneys, many fine and wonderful things have been done by attorneys. However, attorneys are, by self-selection, glib and trained in rationalizing away anything ( remember the question by Clinton “What is “is”?). Our society in general attributes “intelligence” to anyone who is great with language and glib. I have to be careful with a glib person that my bias for good language skills doesn’t cloud my ability to analyze what is being said.

6) Sealed college records. What did he take? How did he do? What did he write?What is he hiding?

7) Sealed medical records. Hmm What is he hiding?

8) Sealed birth certificate.. What is he hiding?

9) Where are all his college and law school friends and professors praising him? Can’t find any. Why?

Ok, that is it for the unknowns ( pretty much his whole life).

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:04 am


10) Political career launched in living room of Bill Ayers; an unrepentant Weather Underground leader ( along with his wife); who wrote a book in 1974 called Firestorm praising “political prisoners” such as Sirhan (who assassinated JFK); stated in 2001 that he wishes he had blown up more buildings and people; went to Venezuela and praised Chavez ‘s educational reforms ( who has banned all books not approved by him in the school system), ..and more but you get the idea.

11) In spite of this well known fact of starting his political career in the the LR of Ayers and Bernadine Dorn ( also a Weather Underground member), he DENIES relationship with Ayers,. Ok, how about.., he has spoken at many functions with Bill Ayers, he blurbed a book written by Ayers, and he (1999-2002), served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), a “philanthropic” organization that Bill Ayers secured the funding for and serves as the grantwriter and co-chair of its two operational arms.

Why is he trying to downplay his time with Ayers?

12) DENIES relationship with ACORN, the “organization” which he used to claim as part of his “Community Organizer” label. ACORN was responsible for hassle lawsuits charging “racism” to blackmail banks into complying with Congress’s rules ( from the Community Reinvestment Act, a type of affirmative action lending Act which regulated Fannie Mae into securitizing only banks which gave loans at 0% down to people with no jobs and no hope of paying back the mortgage...and here we are in a mortgage meltdown). But, wait, the guy who denies any relationship with ACORN was a TRAINER for ACORN, was a LAWYER for one of the hassle lawsuits, and gave ACORN $800,000 to “get out the vote” for him. AS part of the CAC ( Chicago Annenberg Challenge), , Obama and Ayers at CAC gave ACORN’s Grassroots School Improvement $50,000. As late as Nov of 2007, Barack Obama makes a speech at ACORN’s annual convention and says, “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

Why isn’t he proud of his relationship with ACORN, and instead denying his ties?

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:06 am


13) Was elected State senator the first time around by throwing opponents like Alice Palmer off the ballot through “unqualifying” signatures on petitions for such things as signing the name “Bill” rather than “William”, getting married and changing your name after you signed the petition etc. Hmm. He worked in this way against all the candidates, until he was the ONLY candidate left on the ballot…then explained his means justifies the ends thinking this way “If you can win, you should win and get to twork doing the people’s business”.
Why was he afraid to run against ANY other candidates, including Alice Palmer? ( Look up who Alice Palmer was).

14) Was the most absent Senator in Chicago. And, when not absent, voted “present” the most of any Senator, rather than commit to any one vote. What is he afraid of showing?

15) Got house for $300,000 less than market value..through Rezko, now convicted of fraud and bribery, who was born and raised a Catholic Syrian, leaving Syria after college in the mid 1970s. Hmm..bribery? What was he bribing Obama for?

16) Funny how Michelle Obama’s employer got millions more in Fed money the year that Obama was elected Senator of Illinois.

More on ethics under other areas.

Posted by Wow
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:12 am

Wow, that's the worst set of things you can say about him? Seems weak, esp since most of it is just ridiculous - sealed college records? huh? Started using his given name Barack instead of nickname Barry after trip to Pakistan?? There are whole Newsweek articles on that one. He's an attorney?! Stop the presses!

Frankly I'm pretty disappointed. While I like Obama, there's stuff not to like, but these kind of petty smears and insinuations are pretty weak.

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:15 am

Oops, more on ethics and political allegiances

17) Goes to parties in honor of the likes of Kahlil Mohammed..look him up. He would like to eradicate Jews and Israel. He applauds Kahlil’s speeches, but for some reason the LA Times won’t release the tape of the speech tha t Obama applauded…hmmm. Journalists, or propagandists?

18) After announcing run for POTUS, goes in 2007, to Kenya on the taxpayer’s dime to endorse his cousin, Raila Odinga’s, bid for the Presidency in Kenya. Odinga, who is well known to be Marxist and a very dangerous man, is seen being endorsed by his American cousin, a sitting U.S. Senator, while he campaigns throughout Kenya. The cousin Odinga loses and unleashes weeks of pillaging, burning, and genocide of people of his opponent’s tribe until his rival who won the election by a slim margin concedes and agrees to give Odinga the title of Prime Minister. There is widespread rioting. Hundreds of Christian churches are burned to the ground. An estimated one thousand people are killed.

19) Has bought into Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Revolution" book, which started ACORN. On April 11th 2008, Obama addresses a private fundraiser in San Francisco and, believing he is "off mike", claims that people in the Midwest cling to guns and God. In 1971, Saul Alinsky’s, in his last book “Rules for Radicals”, postures that people ‘cling to fixed illusionary points that they feel are meaningful- clinging to guns and religion, a false patriotism.’ Once again we see the specter of Karl Marx when he said, in 1842, “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes” and is often referred to as “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Further - “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. In the words of Norman Thomas, Socialist, Pacifist and six time presidential candidate, “The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name ‘Liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist Program until one day America will be a Socialist Nation without knowing what happened.

20) On April 27, 2008, Obama continued his assertions about his relationship with Bill Ayers when Obama appeared on Fox News Sunday and repeated the claim that, “Mr. Ayers is a 60 plus year old individual who lives in my neighborhood…”

To be continued

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:36 am

Sorry, hit a glitch..will post more in a sec

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:40 am

More Ethics and Allegiances

21) I am pro-some choice, but this is too far down the slope. Voted against a bill which would have given health care to babies born alive from a “botched” abortion, stating this would erode “Roe V Wade” . Guessing only..what does this mean on his stance on partial birth abortions? ( Look up what they are and when they are performed).

22) Has vowed to take away parental rights of notification when underage daughters are brought in for abortions in the 25 States that have voted this in ( thereby lowering the number of pregnant teens and thus lowering the number of abortions in these states, and raising the arrest and conviction rate of adult males having sex with underage females)

23) He sat in the pews for 20 years, married and baptized and raised his children in a church with a racist preacher calling for the downfall ( in worse language) of the USA and whites. The same church gave an award and money to Farakhan..look him up. Then, once the tapes were released of”Rev” Wright, claimed he didn’t know this guy was like that. Even Oprah left after a few months. Either he never went to the church as he claims, or he is lying about what he heard, or he sat there an zoned out. IN any of the cases, can you trust him to be the POTUS? I have left 3 churches because I disagree with the politics…

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

More Ethics and Allegiances

24) Speaking of marriage: married a woman who went to one of the finest Ivy League Universities in the world, as a black woman, then says our country is mean and she was never proud of her country until her husband ( who , btw way, also appears just as “black” and also went to a great Ivy league) was nominated..what? Do I really want that kind of attitude in my White House for all the world to laugh at?
25) He threw the only person who consistently stuck by him, his Grandmother, under the bus for political gain. She was a “ typical white person”, “racist” like Wright. Huh? How can a white racist love and raise a black grandson? “Races” to his grandmother’s side because she is “gravely ill”…at home recovering from a broken hip..excuse to make sure his Hawaii birth cert stays sealed? Political ploy to try to repair his image after throwing her under the bus? Yuk.
26) He dares to “preach” at us about “caring for our brother” , while he has given far less than 1% to any charity at all, and gave nothing to a ½ brother living in Africa in a hut and an Aunt living in Boston in the slums. Yet, he calls me, who gives 10% and makes a lot less than he has, greedy because I don’t want to pay yet more taxes because I want to CHOOSE who gets my money, not let OTHERs choose who gets my money. Apparently he only wants to care for our ‘brothers” with Other People’s Money.

27) He consistently, along with all the other Dem leaders, shows complete disdain for me. I am not only a greedy white person, I am a bitter racist American, clinging to my guns and religion. I am a “redneck”, too stupid to know what is good for me and my kids.

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:50 am


28) Went on the campaign trail for President with the least experience in anyone in the history of the USA..143 days in the Senate. Almost no prior full-time job outside of Senator ( when he showed up for work). Knows less of the real world than the vast majority of adult Americans of his age who have worked…


29) Lack of Belief in the goodness of our Constitution: He has repeatedly said in radio interviews before he started running for POTUS that he thinks our Constitution is “flawed” ( I guess he would have to think this to justify his votes against the 2nd Amendment and his work against the 1st Amendment).He tries to promote the idea that our Constitution allowed slavery, completely and conveniently forgetting that it was on the basis of the Constitution that slavery was overturned. ( And, by the way, on the deaths of millions of white men and women fighting for the North). He wants the Supreme Court to forget the Constitution, fix its “flaws” and create judgements that “share the wealth” from the bench…9 unelected people, 3 of whom he will appoint, are going to determine our taxes and our lives. I guess he doesn’t like that “taxation only with representation” part. He wants to expand the “negative rights” spelled out in the Constitution, to allow the Feds even more power over States than it has already stolen for itself. He doesn’t want to keep the Constitutional rights spelled out in our Constitution, the limits on the Fed spelled out in the Constitution. Don’t believe it, YOUTUBE Radio Interview, Barack Obama, Chicago 2001. ( Not that any president before him has done a great job of limiting the Feds, but the Dems seem to take more power than others. )

30) Along with the lack of belief in the goodness of our Constitution: has voted against the right to bear arms in every case presented to him ( 2nd amendment..just upheld by the Supreme Court by one Justice). Has vowed to kill free speech by reinstituting the “Fairness Doctrine” to kill AM radio free speech. Air America will be obliged to have Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity on it ½ the time in the name of “Fairness”. What about my right to listen to what I want? Refused to go on Fox, and Hannity, though repeatedly disses them..why is he afraid to speak there but not with avowed enemies of the USA? Pulled Biden from the campaign trail because he can’t stop telling the truth. Threw journalists off his campaign plane who worked for papers that endorsed McCain. His campaign has harassed the husband of the only journalist to ask Biden tough questions. His supporters have used STATE resources to research Joe the Plumber, and the journalist’s husband, and others who have come out against Obama. What is he afraid of? Sound familiar? Can you spell “Chavez” in Venezuela? Can you spell “abuse of power”?

31) And, what about Border Control? Have you heard even ONE word? From ANYONE on the Dem side? Our illegal immigration has “slowed” to a mere 800,000/year now..800,000 new ILLEGAL immigrants still coming into this country every year! Who is paying their health care, their education, their imprisonment? 30% of prisoners are here illegally..whether they be in Chicago or California. How high is the percentage in county hospitals? Go sit in an ER one day and look and listen to the people who have set up picnics there waiting for care. ( Yet, I am just afraid of people “not like me”, and, the child of a LEGAL immigrant who came here at 17 and speaks with an accent to this day)

32) He wants to keep us Energy Dependent, along with Reid and Pelosi, on hostile countries for our oil needs…making us very vulnerable to economic blackmail.

33) He, and his party, don't understand the science of climates. The only solutions to “Climate Change” are always, suspiciously, more Fed power, fewer jobs, no domestic energy in oil drilling, no building oil refineries, no building nuclear energy.. Hmm

34) Foreign Affairs. He repeatedly stated, before he learned that it wasn’t popular to say so, that he will sit down without preconditions with enemies of the USA and Israel, legitimizing them and giving the impression that somehow there is room to “negotiate” with people whose only goal is to annihilate you. He has repeatedly voted against funding for the health and safety of our troops risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. He repeatedly, before he learned it was unpopular to say so, called for the immediate defeat of the USA in Iraq through retreat. He is seen by Tyrants around the world as “one of them”..which is why Hamas has endorsed him, and Khaddafy of Libya ( check it out if you don’t believe me). 80% of the world wants a weaker America in all ways..and 80% want Obama. Think about it. The people who WANT the demise of the USA WANT Obama. What do they understand that we don’t? Think about Biden promising us that if BARACK is elected, we will be “tested” within the first 6 months.. Why Barack, and not McCain. Could it be because EVEN BIDEN knows that the world’s tyrants understand McCain will NOT TOLERATE TESTING!!!??

35) Economics. For months nobody corrected him on his “raising Capital Gains taxes on just the rich” ( an impossibility). He has no clue that every State and every Nation around the world ( and our nation also, historically when we as a nation raise taxes)…loses jobs and loses income into the state coffers when taxes go up. He prefers to equalize OUTCOME , making all of us poorer, than focus on equal OPPORTUNITY. He has as “economic advisors” the very people who engineered the mortgage meltdown in Congress and at Fannie Mae.

36) Unions: He has teachers’ unions supporting him( the same ones who looked over the decline of our education test scores for the 35 years prior to No Child Left Behind, when our test scores finally started rising again). They want NCLB rules destroyed so there is no more testing: hence no more accountability. But they won’t turn down the money that comes with it. He has all the Unions behind him. HE WANTS TO ERADICATE ANONYMOUS VOTES FOR UNIONS so thugs can intimidate people into unionizing. He has the AARP behind him ( the same ones who fought fixing Social Security so our kids will be burdened by us). Do you want the USA to follow Michigan’s lead, a state run into the ground by the unions, high taxes, and overregulation of the auto industry?

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:54 am

More Economics ( sorry, out of order)

37) How much power do you want to give to OTHERS to decide how much YOU pay in taxes? What is magical about $250,000, or $200,000, or $ 150,000 ( please note the numbers keep lowering.). The annual income number keeps changing because there is strictly class envy being played here, no economic foundations at all. Even ol’ Barack himself finally said last month ( nobody noticed in the Mainstream Media, please note) that a downturned economy is NOT the time to raise taxes. If it isn’t good in a bad economy, why is it good in a good economy? The effect is the same. FDR’s taxes prolonged and deepened the Great Depression, and remember..Carter destroyed our economy. Go listen to some of FDRs or Carter’s speeches won’t hear anything different from the Obama and the Dem leaders of today, yet this is the party of “change”.

I have now heard 2 avowed socialists from other socialist countries, and 3 anti-communists who escaped here from Communism ( Cuba, Russia, Yugoslavia) flat out state that they recognize his rhetoric and his crowds. The are the few loudly stating that the Emperor has no clothes. They fear for their jobs and the future of their kids.

38) I am not a person filled with envy. I don’t want to encourage envy and coveting. I DON’T CARE IF THE “RICH” MAKE 100 TIMES WHAT I MAKE, AS LONG AS I HAVE GOOD WORK AND CAN ASPIRE TO MAKE MORE ALSO. I DON’T WANT THE “RICH” TO STOP EMPLOYING ME BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW MAKING LESS FROM TAXATION. I don't want to vote out money from THEIR pockets. Such an action shames me.


40) I want our Federal coffers to be filled with money. OUR FEDERAL COFFERS HAVE MADE THE MOST MONEY, EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA, in spite of 9/11 and the devastation to our economy, AFTER BUSH CUT TAXES. I want us to bring in more money, and pay out less, in order to balance our budget and pay off our debt.

Posted by Perspective, All done
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:57 am



Barack Obama, with a Dem supermajority, is going to pull a repeat of the last time we had a far left Dem president with a Dem supermajority….Carter years. In those years, with the same rhetoric and policies of the Dem and Obama now..we had 11% unemployment, bottoming out Fed income 12% inflation, 21% interest rates, Americans held as hostages in Iran for over a year WITH NO RESPONSE from us (I wonder how the tyrants got the idea we were weak?), long gas lines, rapidly rising oil prices. We had the “Fairness Doctrine” which prevented Freedom of Speech. We stopped all new oil drilling and nuclear power plant building. We started the Community ReInvestment Act, the precursor to the mortgage meltdown. We expanded Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments, which enticed young girls into having babies for money, thereby destroying the black family ( and rapidly on our way with the Hispanic famly), and giving birth to generations of kids born to unwed, uneducated mothers. Who repeat the cycle. In other words, we laid the seeds of terrorism, rising oil prices, insecurity around oil, increasing poverty, decreasing family stability and education, and economic meltdown. Not saying it is all Carter’s/Dems fault, of course, but I AM saying it is the fault of the IDEOLOGY which supports these actions and CONTINUES to support these actions ( from Dems and to a lesser degree “Moderate” Republicans, of whom McCain is one).
Watch it all repeat , only worse now, if we elect Obama with Reid and Pelosi in charge. WE can only hope that some of our Democracy Allies in other parts of the world will band together and help us out if we need them ( ha…)

With McCain, at least the decline would be slower, and maybe we could actually learn and turn THE Titanic around before it hits the iceberg. One part of the “iceberg” is the tipping of America into a majority of people who take more from the pockets of others ( in taxes) than they give back..once this happens, the majority will continue to vote ever increasing amounts from the minority.

The other part of the “iceberg” is the gleeful “challenges” from around the world of tyrants trying to take over their neighbors, building WMD and paying terrorists to come kill Americans.

With McCain, at least there would be ONE branch of the government with a LITTLE bit of opposition. Not much, granted, but some. At least there would be SOME diversity of thought…opinion…And a LOT of criticism. Nothing would go unreported. That is the one thing I can count on in our hallowed halls of “journalistic integrity” ( rapidly becoming an oxymoron, like “government efficiency”).

Posted by Senior
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Why I am Voting Against Obama. Because you're old and narrow minded. I'm old too and happy to vote for Obama, that's because I look to the future with broad minded optimism.

Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Perspective--you wrote and wrote and said nothing. What a waste of time and space

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Fellow Senior: If you are my age and older, that means you remember Carter.. It also means that there is no excuse for you to use the excuse of "optimism" (hope!! hope!!) and broad mindedness ( change! change!!) to vote against your kids and grandkids for another Carter. Why didn't you learn anything? When are you going to grow up?Hope you can age in peace as your kids and grandkids suffer the consequences.

Posted by Perspective Admirer
a resident of Nixon School
on Nov 1, 2008 at 1:41 pm

No Pers:

Fellow Senior just refuses to learn from history, dooming us to repeat our errors. The "broad minded" comment is probably meant to imply that SHE is not a racist and is proving it by voting for someone black, whereas YOU are obviously a racist.

Just ignore people like that. There are going to be a lot of them trying to use that crap on us as we criticize President Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Perspective Admirer--good that you readily admit, even before he is elected, that you will criticize President Obama no matter what he does in office. Typical that people like you have no clue what objectivity is.

Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm


One out of seven, eh? And you think that there's anywhere near that ratio of undecided voters reading the Forum?

But lots and lots of allegations that distort the facts or are unproven.

All those words and so little substance. I say this as someone who didn't vote for Obama in the primary. *I* could do a better job of coming up with substantive questions about Obama.

You're wrong, of course, about the branches of government. Obama, if elected, will be the head of the executive branch and the legislative branch will be controlled by the Democrats. The third, of course, is filled with Republican appointments. That would be the judiciary.

You don't seem to even be aware of the structure of checks and balances in this country--why should anyone find you persuasive?

As for foreign affairs--fact is, Obama is already *hugely* popular outside the United States. Other countries would *love* to have an improved relationship with the United States and a U.S. that knows how to cooperate.

You're afraid, Perspective. I don't quite understand why, but your recent posts just reek of it. Take a deep breath. Democrats have been in charge before--and the country has survived, and yes, even thrived under the Democrats.

Are Democrats really these big scary things? Look around you--you're surrounded by Democrats. You live in an area that's a GOP catch phrase for all that's radically liberal and licentious and . . . let's face it, it hasn't been the end of the world.

Posted by Aaron
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Nov 1, 2008 at 2:53 pm


Long time no see.

How are things going at Ohlone with the MI 'invasion'? Are the standards beginning to tighten up over there?

Now to your question:

"Are Democrats really these big scary things?"

Democrats have become progessively more collectivst over the years. That is why neo-conservatives were produced. I hope you are not saying, "lets just all get along", if Obama is elected. Biden, the guy who made a surname a verb ("Bork"), is spouting that nonsense now. What goes around comes around.

I can foresee many more neo-conservatives being hatched over the next four years, if Obama is elected. Not a bad thing, actually.

Posted by Neo-Con
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Well said, Aaron. Yes, that is how i came over to "this side" of the aisle.

the country keeps shifting left so that now my values are "right of center" instead of "left of center". Thus a neo-con was born inthe mid 90's when I figured this out. Took me a while to admit it, because the idea of being in the Repub party was repugnant..but, I had to be intellectually honest.

Now "liberal" means ...Pelosi, Reid and Obama's vision of America and plans for her.

Just hope we can have, before it is too late, another Reagan Revolution and Contract for America ..and this time NOT DRIFT from the basic principals that brought our country into the greatest economic expansion and increase in Fed coffers since post WW2.

Posted by Neo-Con
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 5:58 pm

OP, try reading the posts..research Carter years, the last time Democrats were in charge unchecked. We were NOT "fine", let alone "thrived". The time before that was..guess what? FDR. Try checking out what most economists now say about the depth and length of the Depression from FDR's attempts at wealth transfer.

Then YOU take a deep breath and think about what you are wishing on America.

Yes, many of us are afraid. Not for ourselves, we are older and are going to be fine. But for our kids and what we are handing them as they come out of college in a few years. I know they will be fine, also, but I pity how much more debt they will have on their backs with trillions in new programs proposed and an declining economy.

Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 2, 2008 at 1:12 am


MI at Ohlone has brought no benefit to the school, though it's increased traffic. I've written about it elsewhere.

Democrats have become more collectivist? You're someone who doesn't know his history, kiddo.

Hatching more neo-cons? As opposed to those ones now voting for Obama?

Neo-Con, you, too, are someone who doesn't know his history well.

And the Carter years were not the last time the Dems were in control. They were in control the first two years of Clinton.

Obama's an interesting guy though--he's doing his damnedest to make sure he's got a mandate as well as the office.

Of course, the real joke here with your fear is that we're already in a mess--a long expensive war, a financial collapse and a recession.

The most notable thing is that none of you can argue *for* McCain. All you've got is this fear of Obama--who seems to be a bright guy with a cool head on his shoulders. Between Palin and his financial crisis/debate flip-flop, McCain gave Obama the election.

It's funny--you guys are clearly afraid of an Obama presidency, but I think you're afraid that he'll succeed after the Republicans have failed so badly.

And let's face it, the Republicans in control was a disaster on multiple fronts. (Why is it that Republicans are so bad with the budget?) Which is why you guys won't get to play for a couple of years--quite possibly longer.

And, who knows, at some point you might figure out that the 60s are over

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2008 at 8:39 am

I think it is hilarious that after I wrote this, that one of my concerns the complete lack of attention to illegal immigrants and how they suck up tax dollars....Obama's 1/2 Aunt is discovered living here ILLEGALLY in SUBSIDIZED HOUSING in Boston. And what the Boston Housing Authority is shocked about is that she is Obama's Aunt, but no shock that she is here ILLEGALLY in SUBSIDIZED HOUSING.

How many MILLIONS MORE people are there who, if we simply sent them home, would balance our budgets!!!

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2008 at 8:42 am

OP...You really like your blinders, don't you? Are you actually TRYING to ignore the words, like a monkey with hands over his eyes, or are you reading them and deliberately twisting them? I can't tell.

Try again..the last time there was a supermajority Dem Congress and a Dem President was CARTER YEARS....Clinton never presided over a supermajority anything.

Now, re-read all the posts and highlight SUPERMAJORITY..and think about how that means NO REPUBLICAN INPUT at all..And look at what happened under CARTER.

Posted by Read some history
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 2, 2008 at 9:38 am


"the country keeps shifting left "

Which country? The United States has been drifting rightward for 40 years. Obama and most of the Democrats are dead center; the extreme rightwingers are now the Republicans.

If you're really a fiscal conservative, if you're really concerned about the "trillions in debt" left for our children to pay, the Dems are a much better bet than the Republicans. History teaches us that the Dems do a better job of balancing the budget and expanding the economy, despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

Those are just the facts.

Posted by The Real Reason
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2008 at 11:08 am

You're not voting for Obama because he is black and they scare you.

Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 2, 2008 at 12:36 pm

"You're not voting for Obama because he is black and they scare you."

Real Reason, I think you would find that many neo-cons would vote for Tom Sowell or other conservative blacks, if the opporuntiy presented itself. Obama is a leftist...that is the reason we are doubtful.

Posted by Bilingual
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 2, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Read Some History and Real Reason:

Where did you learn Newspeak?

Economics: Debt as ratio to GDP goes down after a few years of Repub control. This time has been no exception: We inherited 6 months of true recession from the Clinton years, turned it around..then 9/11 hit. Our GDP crashed, but we still managed to turn it around and post the biggest growth ever in the history of the USA. The DEBT comes at the cost of silly Repubs thinking that if they play "compassionate conservative" and double the Education budget through NCLB, and double the Medicare budget through covering meds that should have never been covered, that somehow they will be "liked" by the Dems.

The "moderate" Republicans blew it, and blew it big. They deserve to lose, and lose big, in this election. Maybe they will remember the lesson of Bush and McCain: Do not try to "cross the aisle" or you will 1) hurt the country and 2) be blamed for it and 3) be stabbed by the very people you shook hands with across the aisle.

Posted by Hmm
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 2, 2008 at 3:08 pm

If these are the moderates, then the conservative repubs seem pretty scary. In the next cycle, the wedge politics and tax-reduction-at-all-cost politics of the right will be increasingly marginalized, and a new generate of moderate republicans and others who don't rely on cultural/religious divides. The "know-nothings" have run their course, and I expect a return to more idea-based conservatism.

Posted by Quadrilingual
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 2, 2008 at 3:42 pm

"Economics: Debt as ratio to GDP goes down after a few years of Repub control." No, sorry, just not true. And you're talking about the deficit, not debt. The deficit (as a ratio) grew.

Under Bush, the republicans "managed to turn it around and post the biggest growth ever in the history of the USA." Absolutely false. Growth has been meager under Bush. And the biggest thing to note about that growth is that for the first time ("in the history of the USA," as you would have it) it came with no income growth for average Americans. So I wouldn't go around bragging.

As for the Republicans playing "compassionate conservatives" and "crossing the aisle," we're still waiting ... it just never happened.

As for the national debt, why don't you explain how successive Republican leaders have driven our debt to astronomical numbers (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, for example).

The truth is that the Democrats are the fiscally conservative party and that the Republicans have spent our children's incomes many times over with little to show.

Posted by Debt
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 2, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Bi, not sure where your data comes from. The national debt when down as a percent of GDP up till the Reagan years, when it skyrocketed with the military buildup and tax cuts; shrank again as a percent of GDP during the Clinton years (in part due to great GDP growth); and then has gone up again under Bush. Sounds like your are letting your ideological lens get in the way of the data.

Posted by T
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 2, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Perspective, you wrote, "At least there would be SOME diversity of thought…opinion…"

It's interesting that I came to the opposite conclusion. Senator Obama appears to solve problems in a collaborative manner. In other words, it appears that he seeks input from people with a variety of perspectives. Senator McCain seems to have more of a "take the bull by the horns" kind of style -- which I also think has value -- but I do not see as much diversity of thought and opinion with this method. If I had my way, we'd see both these men working closer together than they ever have before. Of course, they'd need to come up with a shared vision first. But the results could be great since they have such complementary skills. In truth, I do not believe that either candidate would ever actually "reach across the aisle" to the other, no matter how much they might like to say they would. But I do enjoy imagining such a scenario.

Posted by IlikeObama
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2008 at 9:08 pm

As far as his colleagues, I have heard several interviews with several of his colleagues where he taught constitutional law for something like 10 years and they had the highest regard for him. Also fellow college students have spoken very highly of Obama. Not so about McCain. I can't recall anyone speaking well of him except, ahem, the religious neanderthal Sarah Palin.
Something really weird about your long long long long diatribes. Have you been taking notes from Rush Limbaugh?
Why is anyone responding substantively to this nonsense?

Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 2, 2008 at 9:56 pm


So a supermajority is your concern, eh? Because you're afraid of a repeat of the Carter years? While the Iran crisis was an issue, it was Paul Volker's policies that led to the country's financial recovery--a Carter legacy co-opted by Reagan fans. Reagan, of course, created a massive deficit--the one Clinton reduced.

Carter wasn't a star president, but he was a better one than George W. Bush. I'd say your fears, like your concerns about Obama, are unfounded. (And meanwhile McCain goes unmentioned--that's why he's losing guys, there's no reason to vote for him at this point.)

You could, by the way, actually do some research regarding your concerns. It would require reading more than the Drudge Report, but you might find it reassuring to discover just how unwarranted your fears are.

The brouhaha about ACORN is baseless propaganda. Sorry, falsified voter registrations don't result in fake voters. Obama's birth certificate--yeah, it's there, it's legit. It's been investigated. Yes, he was born in Hawaii. And, yes, he's a U.S. citizen and, no, his parents couldn't have given up his U.S. citizenship for him.

Just one piece of nonsense after another--it's like batting away gnats. And about as meaningful.

But you cling to them, repeating them, never acknowledging that they've amounted to nothing. And then you run to and grasp the next slander. Hoping that somehow that will be the big bad hidden truth about Obama.

It's pitiful.

I know why the McCain-Palin campaign is doing this--they're losing and grasping at straws. But why are *you* doing this? I don't think you even know. (It's a bit like your planning to vote for Proposition 8--somehow you think if your right to marry is taken away that your protecting "the right to association"--i.e. the right of bigots to be bigots. When actually the two don't have anything to do with one another. I guess it's live and let live for you as long as other people who don't believe that can decide how you should live your life.)

There are a lot of Republicans who have come out to support Obama--including some really conservative ones. Don't you think that if Obama were this wild and crazy radical they'd have supported John McCain instead? Unlike you, they're in a position to get some first-hand information about the guy.

Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 2, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Well, it looks like the undecideds have been deciding. From

The latest Washington Post/ABC News tracking poll shows Sen. Barack Obama leads Sen. John McCain, 54% to 43%, among likely voters.

Key findings: "The ranks of persuadable voters has dwindled to 7% heading into the final day. One part of McCain's steep challenge is that more than a quarter of the probable electorate has already voted -- among these early birds, 59% said they voted for Obama, 40% for McCain."

One other interesting thing of note--the polls that include cell phones show Obama with a larger lead--11 points v. 5.

Posted by President Obama
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 3, 2008 at 7:43 am

538: Obama 340, McCain 198 (96% win percentage for Obama)
Electoral-Vote: Obama 353, McCain 185
Yahoo: Obama 313, Obama 181, 44 Toss-Ups

Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Nov 3, 2008 at 1:33 pm

OP says that we should vote for Obama because he is hugely popular with those outside the US. Actually, this is a point against him. Our president should look after our interests, not those of the European socialist mediocrities. They recognize that Obama is one of them. I don't believe we have never had an anti-American presidential candidate before.

Posted by Incredulous
a resident of Gunn High School
on Nov 3, 2008 at 2:04 pm

For those of you still thinking of voting for McCain, check out this article: Web Link

Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 3, 2008 at 7:28 pm

R. Wray,

I haven't told you how to vote--just pointing out the obvious.

Your error here--and it's a big one--is assuming that our interests are best served by having adversarial relationships.

Barack Obama is a constitutional law scholar--I guarantee you he understands the ideas and structure of our republic far better than do you.

Incredulous, I've read the article--Quite interesting. Though I think people aren't going to care much about McCain in a couple of days.

Posted by The World Is More Than Europe
a resident of Southgate
on Nov 3, 2008 at 9:06 pm

R Wray:
Obama is not just popular in Europe - he is popular world-wide, including in such "radical" countries as Canada, Australia and Japan.

Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:50 pm

OP, If Obama understood the structure of our republic, he wouldn't be advocating robbing the rich to give to the poor. His Robinhood actions belong to a feudal time, not to America where every individual has rights.

Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm

R. Wray,

Rolling back Bush's tax cuts to the tax rate under Clinton is hardly robbery.

We've had a graduated federal income tax for decades. During that time, the United States became the economic superpower that it is. In part because we built a strong infrastructure--i.e the Interestate system, public schools, etc.

It's the *United* States after all. Not the Balkans.

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Actually R Wray: Robin Hood was trying to TAKE BACK from the GOVERNMENT ( Sheriff) what the Government had stolen from the PEOPLE.

So, BO is no Robin Hood.

Cracks me up..I actually had a guy working for me yesterday telling me he was going to vote for BO because he was "tired of earning more and more yet being taxed more and more everytime he went up a bracket"...huh? I guess he believes that by voting in BO the "rich" will be pillaged and the spoils given to him?

Interesting that Jim Moran is now flat out saying that it is simplistic and wrong to believe that anyone has the right to keep what they earn. This the ideology we are in the process of electing today. Of course, he was elected even though he promised to "earmark the s*&^ out of" everything...

Web Link

Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Nov 4, 2008 at 2:01 pm

The United States became an economic superpower before the federal income tax became legal. Since then the US has prospered in spite of the graduated tax, not because of it. (I don't use Bush or Clinton as standards.)
Obama's continual talk of economic class is Marxist and divisive. And further more, his heavily taxing the producers would prolong the recession-it would be wasting our seed corn. His bottom-up economic theories make no sense. You have to have production before consumption (Say's Law).

Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Nov 4, 2008 at 2:34 pm

This is a quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:
"This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity."

Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 4, 2008 at 2:39 pm

As Adam Smith pointed out, the wealthier have a stake in the integrity of their society that is disproportionately larger than their wealth. For example, a Wall Street CEO has much far, far more to lose from a foreign invasion or a financial calamity than a working stiff (such as an actual, licensed plumber), and therefore should bear proportionately more of the tax burden for the military and Wall Street bailouts.

So make them pay their way. No freeloading off the rest of us. If they think they'd be better off in France or Dubai or Russia or China let them move there.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Boichik Bagels is opening its newest – and largest – location in Santa Clara this week
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,427 views

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Ch. 1, page 1
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,569 views

By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 735 views


Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 30 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away almost $10 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.