A look at the Presidential candidates - the Democrats
Yesterday, we took a look at the big 3 GOP candidates for 2008, so now it’s time to take a look at the other side of the aisle.
Barack Obama
Obama has received a lot of press adulation as the Democrats’ anti-politician, a non-insider to take on the “culture of corruption” in DC. And to his credit, Obama at least pays lip service to the reality that both parties are to blame for the morass that is DC. This is, however, little reason to vote for a candidate. Outsiders inevitably become insiders, and the desire to reform government fades when one discovers that the power you restrain is your own. Lest we forget, the same thing was said about President Bush in 2000, and we haven’t exactly seen a reduction in the size and scope of government.
The biggest promlem with Sen. Obama is that he has no record to base a decision upon, and when one digs below the surface, there doesn’t seem to be much there there. Take his issues page on healthcare, for example. Fight AIDS through antimicrobials. Encourage exercise by fighting “sprawl”. Reduce lead poisoning. All well and good, but not exactly visionary.
His other positions are equally troublesome. Improving education by rewarding good teachers soods like common sense. But he proposes doing it through a government pilot program in which localities develop plans in cooperation with teachers’ unions. No, no, no. Empower localities to innovate, sure, but don’t hamstring them with the unions, who will only seek to prevent bad teachers from being fired.
Ultimately, Obama is famous mostly for giving a fiery speech at the 2004 convention. He hasn’t done much yet to show he is not a lightweight.
John Edwards
If Obama seems to be a lightweight based on inexperience and a lack of substantive ideas, Edwards is a lightweight, a faux populist in a multimillion dollar mansion, criticizing the class divide while he lives it. Edwards’ primary substantive proposal is his hideous healthcare plan, which would include substantial new taxes to pay its $120 million price tag, would create a massive subsidy of the sick by the healthy (by requiring coverage of all preexisting conditions) and would greatly increase the federal medical bureaucracy by expanding Medicaid to cover the uninsured. Ultimately, Edwards’ plan goes in precisely the wrong direction - though the plan speaks of Health Markets, the proposal reduces opportunities for market-based reform. It doesn’t increase price transparency or provide appropriate price signals. It increases, if that is possible, the divide between the payor and the consumer of medical services. Now it’s not just your employer who subsidizes your health care, it’s everyone.
Hillary Clinton
Ugh, just ugh. Hillary’s 1993 health care plan was horrible, and there’s no reason to believe it’s gotten any better. It betrayed her inherent fondness for government intrusiveness and micromanagement. But she’s different now, right? A moderate, not a liberal, or so everyone says. Therein lies the problem, and the reason President Hillary is simply frightening.
Take Iraq for example. She voted to autorize the war in 2002. Now that the war is unpopular, she tried arguing that she wasn’t really voting for war. When that didn’t help her with liberals and led to ridicule from conservatives, she really went overboard:
Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year’s election.
“Now it’s time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war,” the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.
90 days? Who is she kidding? This makes Obama’s phased “redeployment” by March 2008 seem positively conservative. Disagree with the war, say you were wrong in voting for it, whatever. But don’t propose rash action that emperils both Americans and Iraqis just to get in good with your base. Don Surber’s reaction is like mine:
Finally, yesterday I praised Hillary for standing up to the Surrender Wing of the Democrat Party. Today she surrenders to the Surrender Wing. She will make Jimmy Carter look good as president. No principles. Just a power-craven madwoman. In a pantsuit.
Hillary’s hitting all the Pander Points. Throw a bone to the rabid anti-war left? Check. Meaningless attacks on offensive (to some) symbols? Check:
“I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day”…
As Ann Althouse points out, this doesn’t mean much of anything unless she’s attacking all state flags. But Hillary doesn’t want it to mean anything. She proposes a troop withdrawal bill that she knows won’t pass. She appears to criticize Confederate flag waving good old boys without actually saying so, since she needs the Bubba vote. Her husband proved admirably that when you try to be all things to all people, you end up accomplishing nothing for anyone.
McCain and Romney deserve criticism for pandering, but Hillary raises it to a whole new level.
Bottom line: all three of these characters are statists cloaking themselves in populist rhetoric. Obama seems the least bad of the three, at least so far. As bad as Bush and the Republican congress have been on spending and liberty, these characters are worse.
