Obama foreign plan offers less violence
Jason Locke - February 28th, 2008We’re in bad shape, people. I’m going to be up front: I’m pretty liberal. Not ‘liberal’ in the same sense a Democrat is liberal. I’m liberal on the world stage. Democrats, while left in the United States, are conservative on the world stage. In essence, I have no political party. There are no candidates that reflect my views. Sure, I have more in common with some than others, but in the end there’s not much for me in the sense of political agenda.
That aside, I’m voting for Barack Obama. It’s not because we’re a match made in heaven, because he’s black, because he’s young, because he’s incredibly handsome or because he’s a Democrat. No, it’s the simple reason that he’s the least likely of the three serious candidates to throw a laser-guided hissy fit in a developing nation.
While his campaign slogan “Change” is both succinct and about as powerful as a car battery, it’s the fact that he is the least likely out of the current candidates to wage a war for some ludicrous reason somewhere we’re not particularly welcome, wanted or needed. I give him 40-1 odds of starting a war for kicks. McCain and Hillary are practically guaranteed a good, quick war (as was said about World War I) to improve their political standing.
Thus far, it looks like he’s going to win the nomination, probably because he is such an icon of “Change.” How much can he change? With the way Congress and the country are divided, there’s not much he can do on the legislative side of things. Unless all the Supreme Court justices drop dead, there’s not much “change” he can do there, either.
That leaves the happy little office of the executive, with the only power that matters, the power to make war through the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act allows a president to send troops into action for sixty days without Congressional approval. In this era of a massive United States military, things get complicated.
So yes, it’s a sad day. I have to pick a president on the basis on his or her ability to not wantonly kill versus them having any redeeming qualities, catchy slogans, good looks, or incredible public speaking abilities.
In the end, none of it matters. Obama’s promises of a new tomorrow aren’t going to congeal unless Congress and the Supreme Court suddenly switch parties, but he is the more likely of all the candidates to keep his finger off the trigger.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I give Obama 40-1 odds that faced with a situation that genuinely requires a war; he flakes and endangers the safety of Americans (Vegas figures are closer to 35-1, Atlantic City has 45-1).
I expect a certain level of kill-ability (the ability to kill, not be killed) in who I vote to be our nation’s commander in chief. The president’s main constitutional duty after all is to command the military, and it would be ignorant to choose a president on the basis of how unwilling he is to use the armed forces when necessary. It would be just as ignorant to choose a president who doesn’t have the experience and proper judgment to know when it’s crucial to use military force. Obama doesn’t have any military experience at all, and it’s very unlikely that he has the credentials (militarily, economically, and otherwise) to be the president (current Vegas odds are 26-1 against).