In his historic speech last night, U.S. Sen. Obama, the Democrat nominee, stated that he felt everyone's pain, causing him to make many promises. If he made 100 promises, then how many do you think he will fulfill?
Of course, we should not expect him to fulfill 100% of his promises, but if he is the source of change and hope, then why shouldn't we expect a high fulfillment ratio? Shouldn't we expect that most of his promises will be fulfilled in his first term, then look for him to fulfill the rest during his second term?
Pessimistically, if he is a typical politician--long on promises, short on fulfillment, then half or even a quarter of the promises fulfilled would be satisfactory. If you look at his promises--health care for all, peace in the world under his open door leadership approach, ending Middle East oil dependency in 10 years and a tax cut for 95% of us and other such near universal promises, it may be that 10% of promises fulfilled would be realistic. Yet, it may be that only 1% of his promises would be fulfilled, starting with tax increases for the top 5% of earners.
After all, who would pay for all the new, universal federal programs? Truly, the top 5% of earners already pay about 80% to 90% of the taxes. So, where would the rest of the money to pay for the multi-billion dollar federal give aways come from?
Senator Obama's high minded rhetoric was very liberal with much populist appeal: the government and the rich are bad but the everyday man and woman are good. This attracts a broad constituency to win elections.
When the presidential campaign is complete, will Obama and his policies be able to resolve these national and international questions:
1) Will he be able to cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers while paying for an already bloated federal government with a budget approaching $2 trillion plus billions more for free healthcare for all?
2) Will he actually provide health care for legal and illegal immigrants and all the uninsured, which comprises the 47 million uninsured?
3) How will he end our Middle East oil dependency in 10 years when he will prevent, via bureaucratic regulations, the increase of nuclear energy and natural gas facilitation and offshore drilling?
4) Will face-to-face dialogue with the two remaining leaders of the "Axis of Evil" (Iran and North Korea) lead to their unilateral nuclear disarmament and peace co-existence with their neighbors?
5) Will he really and completely pull American solders out of Iraq within 60 days of an Obama oath of office, leaving a political and military vacuum thereby allowing nearly nuclear neighbor Iran to dominate the oil-rich region? Will he then take responsibility for the death of millions of Iraqis?
Wanted: rhetorical accountants, fact checkers and a federally mandated fulfillment department.
Showing posts with label presidency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidency. Show all posts
Dec 13, 2006
Hillary Clinton predicted to be president, Obama vice president, said GOP Leader DeLay
News and Analysis: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Tom DeLay
Breaking News from NewsMax.com
DeLay Predicts Hillary PresidencyFormer House Majority Leader Tom DeLay knows who will be elected president in 2008: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. At a meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., hosted by Human Events and the Heritage Foundation, the former Republican congressman also predicted that Clinton's running mate would be Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. DeLay, who just unveiled his new blog and Grassroots Action and Information Network, said liberal organizations and media will work together to elect Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Hillary will be the next president of the United States because they have built a coalition,” DeLay said, according to Human Events.
Dr. E's Analysis: To my co-workers and/or classes, I've predicted for 12 years that Hillary Clinton (HC) will run for president. In my classes, I've predicted for six years that she'll be the Democrat Party presidential nominee in 2008. This part, Tom DeLay is, I believe, correct. Her vice presidential choice of a well-spoken though unproven senator, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (IL-D) would be a mega media event, but (here's where DeLay and I part), it won't be enough to get the presidency. Why not?
During the last 30 years, Democrats have needed a Southerner to win the presidency (Carter in '76, Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96). The Democrats will need another Southerner, at least as a vice presidential nominee, to win the 2008 election.
Clinton/Obama against the Republicans in '08 will be a tough race; quite possibly ensuring a win for the Dems calls for someone like U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL-D). Post-2000, Florida still remains a critical state for both parties.
Since HC is a NY/Northeast liberal, she does not need another liberal in Obama. Since Dems already get about 90% of the African-American vote, she won't benefit electorally if she chooses a black vice presidential nominee.
Conclusion: A calm and considered choice by HC would call for a substantive Southern male candidate that will balance the ticket and guarantee electoral votes.
What do you think?
Breaking News from NewsMax.com
DeLay Predicts Hillary PresidencyFormer House Majority Leader Tom DeLay knows who will be elected president in 2008: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. At a meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., hosted by Human Events and the Heritage Foundation, the former Republican congressman also predicted that Clinton's running mate would be Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. DeLay, who just unveiled his new blog and Grassroots Action and Information Network, said liberal organizations and media will work together to elect Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Hillary will be the next president of the United States because they have built a coalition,” DeLay said, according to Human Events.
Dr. E's Analysis: To my co-workers and/or classes, I've predicted for 12 years that Hillary Clinton (HC) will run for president. In my classes, I've predicted for six years that she'll be the Democrat Party presidential nominee in 2008. This part, Tom DeLay is, I believe, correct. Her vice presidential choice of a well-spoken though unproven senator, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (IL-D) would be a mega media event, but (here's where DeLay and I part), it won't be enough to get the presidency. Why not?
During the last 30 years, Democrats have needed a Southerner to win the presidency (Carter in '76, Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96). The Democrats will need another Southerner, at least as a vice presidential nominee, to win the 2008 election.
Clinton/Obama against the Republicans in '08 will be a tough race; quite possibly ensuring a win for the Dems calls for someone like U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL-D). Post-2000, Florida still remains a critical state for both parties.
Since HC is a NY/Northeast liberal, she does not need another liberal in Obama. Since Dems already get about 90% of the African-American vote, she won't benefit electorally if she chooses a black vice presidential nominee.
Conclusion: A calm and considered choice by HC would call for a substantive Southern male candidate that will balance the ticket and guarantee electoral votes.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)