Don’t be fooled by the man behind the curtain, the voting record testifies to who Obama really is:
Last Sunday, while stumping — er, speaking — in New Hampshire, the young senator delivered an interesting line. Attempting to explain his sudden rock-star ascendancy to the pantheon of presidential hopefuls, Obama said voters wanted a new vision: “It’s a spirit that says we are looking for something different — we want something new.”
Trouble is, there’s nothing “new” or “different” about Barack Obama. Behind that charm and charisma — a media-entrancing appeal worthy of Bill Clinton — is an extremely liberal-left politician.
Just look at his record.
Obama voted against the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, justifying his anti-growth stance with the old class-warfare saw about tax cuts for the rich. Of course, these are the very same tax cuts that spurred economic expansion, created record job growth and reduced the deficit, as revenues flooded the Treasury.
The young senator also voted against repealing the death tax. He dismissed it as a “Paris Hilton tax break” that would give “billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses.” Try telling that to the owners of farms, ranches and small businesses who are forced to sell their legacies because of this tax.
He swings a nice protectionist bat, too. He has voted against free trade (CAFTA) and U.S. energy independence (drilling in ANWR), and has opposed lifting a $0.54 per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. “Ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices,” he claimed. Nonsense.
He’s also strongly opposed to personal retirement accounts for Social Security reform and prefers instead that the government steward your money. As Amanda Carpenter wrote in Human Events, “When speaking out against various tax cuts, Obama has likened the ‘Ownership Society’ — which entails such things as personalized Social Security accounts, health savings accounts and school choice — to ’social Darwinism.’”…
The senator is liberal to the core. He voted against Supreme Court Justices Sam Alito and John Roberts. (Even liberal Sens. Russ Feingold and Pat Leahy voted for Roberts.) He said no to Patriot Act wiretap extensions, despite their proven effectiveness in halting terrorist attacks over the past five years. He collaborated in blocking John Bolton’s appointment to the United Nations. He earned a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions twice as a state senator. He opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and stood against the Federal Marriage Amendment, despite acknowledging his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Don’t let the charm or the nice smile fool you, when you look straight at the voting record this guy is worse than Hillary Clinton - and few senators can claim that title.
No wonder he has Hillary running scared!
Thanks, HP, this is a strongest endorsement for Obama I’ve seen yet. While on certain issues, he is certainly right of MY center, on the issues mentioned in this article, he is certainly on the side of the middle class and the working poor, trying to correct the current trend to grant more financial privilege to the already privileged. His thumbs down on Bolton, Alito and Roberts as well as his defense of constitutional guarantees against the “Patriot” Act only clinch the deal. If only there were more legislators who could see it that way!
Finally a Democrat with a spine.
A mixed bag for me. I agree with his opposition to the tax breaks for the wealthy. I disagree with him on CAFTA and ethanol tariffs. I agree with his stance against the erosion of civil liberties in the name of fighting terror.
Mark me down as “undecided”. 2008 is still a long time away.
You are a true moderate LaurenceB.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Kjerringa mot Strommen wrote, “Thanks, HP, this is a strongest endorsement for Obama … he is certainly on the side of the middle class and the working poor…”
Obama is ONLY on the side of Barack Obama. His positions DO NOT create growth, DO NOT create new jobs, DO NOT increase the country’s competitiveness.
But I don’t believe he’s ignorant enough to miss the net effect of his anti-growth vote. He simply chooses to overlook that in favor of a populist stance, enhancing his own political future.
And I’m sure he’ll garner many votes like yours, too overwhelmed by the higher math (heh…) of Econ 101 to see beyond the next recession.
HISPANIC PUNDIT,
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF GUYS LIKE YOU PUTTING OUT FALSE INFO RE: THE SO-CALLED
“DEATH TAX”. THE TRUTH IS ONLY A SMALL SEGMENT OF THE U,S POPULATION PAYS
ESTATE TAXES, NAMELY THE VERY RICH. READ THE U.S. TAX CODES, CLOWN.
YOUR CLAIM THAT AVERAGE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS ARE LOSING THE ABILITY
TO TRANSFER MONEY OR PROPERTY TO THE NEXT GENERATIONS IS NOTHING BUT BULL.
I DARE YOU TO PRINT THE UNITED STATES TAX CODES RE: ESTATE TAXES ON YOUR SITE.
IF YOU WERE TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT ESTATE TAXES YOU WOULD PUT THE TAX CODE
THAT SPELLS IT OUT ON YOUR SITE BUT YOU ARE LYING SO YOU CAN’T. YOU’RE A
TYPICAL BENEDICT ARNOLD.GET A JOB LOSER.
This is typical history go back to pre French Rev and you’ll see what happened when the lower class rioted. The big dog Robespierre took control of them to get what he wanted. Obama is the new Robespierre. So we are like France great we’ll have what 5 failed republics…
Oh, dear, JONATHAN WRIGHT. Your all-caps response and claims of others lying while offering no facts of your own is just so typical of an ignorant bomb-thrower (far left OR far right) that I just couldn’t help but display you ignorance in my reply.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00002001—-000-.html
That’s the basic gist of the US Tax Code for the estate tax, although there are pages upon pages of variations. Essentially, if all my Dad, a 32-year retired firefighter, had to leave me was his house and it appraised for $150K, our government that cares so much for the little guy would tax me $62,000.
So, in fact, I would have to sell the house I grew up in just to pay the taxes. How much more true is this for farmers and ranchers that were mentioned in the blog that got you in such a huff?
Your name calling (e.g. clown, loser), and claims of this being “bull” fill me with a deep sadness. See, not only are you ignorant, but your tone is most certainly angry. And I fear your anger may, MAY lead to stupidity because you didn’t look up the information to inform yourself nor share it with others.
…and then I’m afraid you may still vote.