OBAMA’S NEW STRATEGY
By popular demand, citing Narvey, Soren and Birdalone, here’s what you have been waiting for.
But one last comment on the Certificate. We have every right to ask for proof. Now that its provided, we can move on.
By Dick Morris, TheHill.com on June 24, 2008.
Have you noticed a change in Barack Obama’s campaign? Instead of avoiding controversies over values, religion and race, he seems to welcome them and wade into the debates with an increasing enthusiasm.
Characterizing how the Republicans will attack him, he predicted that they would criticize his “funny name” and add “and by the way, did you notice that he’s black?”
Obama used to go out of his way to avoid this kind of reference, but now he brings it on. Deliberately.
Why?
Obama and the conservative right are mutually trying to keep the debate about his candidacy on the existential level — is he the hope for America’s future or a Manchurian Candidate, a kind of sleeper agent sent to destroy our democracy? That debate, which pits Obama’s rhetoric against the Rev. Wright’s rantings, is a contest that could go on all day, and Obama would win it. It is simply a bridge too far to believe that Obama is that evil and that invidious.
But the more the debate covers such fundamental questions, the more it ignores the details — details which could bring Obama down.
Quite simply, Obama would rather address his religious views and his optimism about America and his embrace of diversity than talk about his plans to raise taxes, let gasoline prices soar and socialize healthcare.
In our new book, Fleeced, we try to bring the debate back down to earth, focusing on the specific plans that Obama has announced during his presidential primary campaign and discussing the consequences. This is the debate Barack Obama hopes he can avoid.
Consider his proposals:
-
• In effect, he would legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation. He’d raise the top bracket to 40 percent. He’d apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present. So add 40 percent plus FICA’s 12.5 percent plus Medicare’s 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket.
• He would double the capital gains tax, saddling the 50 percent of Americans who own stock with dramatically higher taxes.
• He’d double the dividend tax, hitting elderly coupon-clippers now retired and depending on fixed incomes.
• He wants to cover 12 million illegal immigrants with federally subsidized health insurance, dramatically driving up costs and forcing federal rationing of healthcare. As in the U.K. and Canada, you will not be permitted certain medical procedures if the bureaucrats decide you are not worth it.
• He proposes requiring Homeland Security operatives to notify terror suspects that they are under investigation within seven days of starting the investigation
• He says that unless they can establish that there is “probable cause to believe that a certain individual is linked to a specific terrorist group,” Homeland Security cannot seize his documents and search his business. The current standard is only that the search be “relevant” to a terror investigation.
• In effect, he would legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation. He’d raise the top bracket to 40 percent. He’d apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present. So add 40 percent plus FICA’s 12.5 percent plus Medicare’s 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket.
He does not oppose $5-per-gallon gasoline but only says that he wishes there had been a more “gradual adjustment” to the higher prices.
Obama can talk about the Rev. Wright and flag lapel pins and his wife’s love of America all day long. But what he resists is a specific discussion of his own plans for our country. That’s the discussion he fears and he avoids. And it’s the discussion John McCain must force upon him if he is to have any realistic chance of winning the election.
While it’s nice to see some attention to less speculative areas of concern re: Obama, these particular issues aren’t the ones that bother me about Obama. Also, I actually think Obama’s religion was/is fair game, but that the focus should on what we know for fact to be Obama’s stated beliefs and chosen influences (liberation theology–not just “black” liberation theology, but liberation theology in general and ecumenism) and what we know for fact Obama is doing now in the area of religion (reaching out to the Religious Left dhimmis affiliated w/the new socio-religious group created by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, whose first convocation was earlier this year). It’s also kind of weird that people focus on very minimal Muslim background influences instead of ecumenical, humanistic unitarian universalist leanings of his grandparents who Obama lived with during the formative years after his mother sent him to live with them rather than to stay in Indonesia.
Another thing I think should be noted about Obama is that some things about him, particularly lately, don’t indicate “change”–at least not “change” when it comes to strong arm tactics of Bush that people across the ideological spectrum have problems with — there’s some serious hints coming out now with Obama’s FISA/telcom reversal, for ex, that he’s just as willing as Bush to violate the Constitution to do whatever he wants and slap the “national security” pretext onto it. Interestingly, both liberals and conservative libertarians (not just ex-Ron Paul supporters, either) that were probably voting Obama are so upset about that that they’ve formed a new group “Strange Bedfellows” to fight back, though some are so discouraged I wonder if there’s much fight left in them, if they’ll just resign to Obama being another same-ole-same-ole sacrifice principle for personal gain politician and just not show up at the polls.
Comment by soren — June 27, 2008 @ 6:09 am
Re Soren: As in all matters, Soren, there should be no “resignation.” Opposition to Obama - not angry revolutionary opposition - just plain ordinary opposition needs to continue. He is an ideologue and, therefore, he will not blame his policies for any failures that occur when they are implemented. On the other hand his high IQ and extraordinary desire for control and power make him capable of being a class-A demagogue. Anyone with with the desire for extreme power needs brakes that can be applied to his works. What I see from Obama is “skate-boarding” skills. He has the ability to maneuver, but not stop. Move right, move left, jump. Very much like the early Communists. Bright people can do more damage than dummies should they put their mind to it. That is what we have here. We will pine for Bush’s self-limitations should Obama win.
Comment by jerry — June 27, 2008 @ 6:59 am
Hit the nail on the head Jerry when you said “he is an ideologue.” And this is why this merger of Obama’s liberation theology supporters with the Clinton Religious Left supporters with as well as with the secular humanist masses is so relevant for us who love Israel. Let me as a Christian familiar with the Religious Left and Ecumenical Movement explain: The Religious Left consists of “practical atheists,” by that I mean, they do not take the Bible literally, but pick and choose what parts they want to appropriate and how, to support their humanist worlview. Now here’s the relevant part re: Israel: they profess peace and good will towards all, love for social justice, and tolerance for all EXCEPT they do not tolerate:
1. teaching that homosexuality is a sin (i.e., they’re pro-gay agenda)
2. teaching that women should not be pastors (i.e., they’re pro-feminist agenda)
3. Christian Zionism (they virulently and intentionally misrepresent Christian Zionist theology and slander its proponents)
4. Zionism in general
Notice all 4 of the above positions are only possible by exaltation of human wisdom over biblical literalism. Again, they are practical atheists, practical humanists. Thus it is no surprise that their leaders have been attending atheist/secular humanist conferences. Interestingly, Obama has support from liberal Catholic liberation theology types (as opposed to the Catholics whose big deal is the anti-abortion/pro-life movement) and Obama’s new ties with the Clintons bring the liberal Evangelical types (that the Clinton’s have been instrumental in bringing together through Bill Clinton’s New Baptist Covenant involvement). So there’s quite a coalition building–and make no mistake, this is a political movement, because remember they use (misuse) the Bible, rather than believe the Bible literally.
99% of the Religious Left/Ecumenical Movement is strongly anti-Israeli land rights, if not outright anti-Israel period!!! These are the people who visit and praise Syria (ex. Rick Warren–from whose megachurch pulpit both Hillary and Obama spoke), the people who sign the dhimmi apology to Muslims (ex. Jim Wallis), the people spearheading Jimmy Carter’s new group (ex. Tony Campolo), etc. Obama himself is the rare exception of a “social gospel” practical atheist Christian who actually identifies his liberation theology fight oppression worldview with support for Israel — but I just wonder how that will hold up given the increasing influence of the Religious Left he is bringing in.
Finally, for fuller appreciation of what Israel supporters are dealing with here, I will in the next (and brief) comment provide a very short but shocking insider video clip from YouTube. I do not provide it here in case the spam blocker doesn’t let it through.
Comment by soren — June 27, 2008 @ 7:32 am
This short (2:31 min) video clip (which I should warn you does flash a brief exclusivist Christian verse on the screen, just ignore that it’s brief) shows the scene from inside the Asisi gathering that really started the big push towards uniting the world religions — and they are uniting against Israel, it’s time to stop denying this, the Catholic church is meeting with the Muslim ummah representatives this October or so with broader ecumenical dialogue ongoing as well (several agreements have already been signed); the Catholic church still has an agreement with the PLO re: Jerusalem — so when you hear of a united Jerusalem capital of Israel that’s not necessarily only the capital of Israel, remember the Catholic plan, that’s what it’s all about. Here’s the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keiU9WiyPJE&feature=related
(In the same way we acknowledge Islam to be more than a religion, it’s time to admit that Catholicism is more than a religion, and so is the Religious Left–they are very political and very anti-Israel.)
Comment by soren — June 27, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Hi, Soren
Whoever thinks that ANY religion is “apolitical” has no grasp of history. Unfortunately about 97% of Americans have no grasp of history.
I think Obama is vulnerable in his plans for higher taxes, and in the “tax on the poor” that is inherent in the high gasoline prices he advocates. McCain was the first candidate, to my knowledge, to couple the gasoline price issue with the gasoline tax issue, and this was a good move. As for “socialized medicine” etc., I wouldn’t harp too loudly on these issues. Most of my friends are pro-McCain Republicans, but most are also on the verge of being homeless because of Republican tax and exonomic policies. It’s all fine and dandy to talk about a “responsible” health care system — until someone loses his job (and health insurance) due to health problems, then dies, leaving a widow who can’t afford house payments and whose Keogh/ IRA money has been spent to pay bills, and who must work at age 70 in a job market that caters to young, bright middle-class Republicans. Frankly, Republican economics stink; but the average American is and should be appalled at the prospect of an Arab Moslem taking control of our country just seven years after these same people attacked us.
BlandOatmeal
Comment by BlandOatmeal — June 27, 2008 @ 9:04 am
Fair enough BlandOatmeal about your comment “Whoever thinks that ANY religion is ‘apolitical’ has no grasp of history,” BUT I am specifically talking about those religious individuals today most influencing anti-Zionist land-for-fake-peace U.S. policy re: Israel, those w/access to the President who also happen to be those Obama is outreaching to, who also happen to be those with enormous masses of followers. For example, take Religious Left leaders Jim Wallis and Tony Compolo — Obama wasn’t reaching out to them so much before, but now after the Hillary concession and efforts to unify, he’s really bringing these political religious leaders in — now these are the exact same people behind horrible, horrible anti-Judaic theology who pressured Bush to push on with Annapolis and to strengthen the role of Catholic Tony Blair in the screw Israel process. I should also note that the “evangelical” language used by Bush in his recent Knesset speech that the Jewish community very foolishly mistook for pro-Israel, when it was the most anti-Israel, replacement theology speech I imagineable, sounded like it came straight from Wallis and Campolo. You and others can blow off these people and lump them in with all religions are political, but you do so to your peril, these guys are indirectly drafting policy and speeches, you all need to wake up. Here’s a sample letter signed by Wallis and Campolo to President Bush on Annapolis and Blair (note how they, too, quote Gen. 12:3 before slamming Christian Zionism, in a respectable manner in this letter — not so elsewhere, though):
http://www.esa-online.org/Display.asp?Page=LettertoPresident
Comment by soren — June 27, 2008 @ 10:53 am
BlandOatmeal, fyi, I responded to your #5, it didn’t post (spam blocked, perhaps), I give up, it’s too hard to carry on a conversation on Israpundit w/all the spam blocking.
Comment by soren — June 27, 2008 @ 11:18 am
We need to find out if he is really a natural born U.S. citizen, which if not, would make him inelligable to be president.
Comment by Laura — June 27, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Dick Morris is not who I would use to start a debate on issues. Leading editorial writers are now wondering whether Obama will take a stand on anything. Start with David Brooks and Gail Collins in the New York Times. Even Ariana Huffington today on the McLaughlin Group was joining in on ‘where is the leadership/political courage?’
Blandoatmeal is correct: “socializing healthcare” no longer works to scare voters. Morris’ arguments on tax policy leave me confused, and I am an economics/tax policy wonk.
Rejecting public financing for the general election; hiring 37 year old Jason Furman as #1 economics advisor as an olive branch to Robert Rubin (anyone 37 years old was in high school during the 1987 meltdown!); support for corn ethanol subsidies and 54 cent/gallon import tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol; allowing Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to shelve SecTreas Paulson’s proposal to re-regulate financial institutions until after the election (which I see as waiting another year to pass before anything gets done which will further undermine confidence, and a sign of hyper-partisanship in Congress).
As to Obama’s birth certificate - another distraction. I remember reading in the London Times in March that a reporter could not confirm whether Obama’s parents were legally married or legally divorced. Maybe that is what the fuss is about - but even if true, would not greatly damage Obama since he is always saying he was raised by a single mom and her parents.
Voters want leadership and a sign that Obama’s change message means something specific, not just young voters wanting a name other than Clinton or Bush on this ballot.
I appreciate Soren’s insights into the attacks on Christian Zionism from the left.
Comment by Birdalone — June 29, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Soren who at the Popes grand happening represented the Jews?
Comment by yamit82 — June 29, 2008 @ 12:31 pm