Our Choice for President
Barack Obama can best lead the fight against all that ails America
If this week’s State of the Union Address provided any underlying message, it was that our long national nightmare of the Bush Presidency is nearly over. As senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama entered that joint session of Congress for Bush’s final address there, the attention had clearly shifted to the question of who will be our next president. Even Republicans have given up on this one.
By that standard, any of the major Democratic candidates would represent a major improvement over the current administration. In their speeches and policy papers, each of these would-be leaders have expressed similar ideas in many of the areas that matter most: preemptive war (against it), health care for all Americans (for it), and outsized tax relief for the wealthy (end it). So the question becomes less about policy differences and more about the ability to turn those ideas into reality. Clinton has experience in Washington, but Obama’s natural leadership abilities have the potential to diminish the destructive partisan wars of the last 16 years. We choose Obama.
Former Sen. John Edwards this week left the race, following his disappointing showing in South Carolina. We had been tempted by his populist campaign. It wasn’t a new message from Edwards, who spoke in 2004 of the “two Americas” – a widening division of rich and poor – that he saw fracturing this country. On Wednesday, both Clinton and Obama pledged to pick up that commitment to social justice, but it seems like a more comfortable fit on the senator from Illinois.
In our view, Obama’s message of hope and inclusion of all Americans represents a desperately needed antidote to the cynicism of Karl Rove. Obama is a progressive Democrat in most ways, and yet he is drawing interest even from Republican voters. That kind of unity is a rare opportunity, and is unimaginable under a return of the Clintons to the White House.
We strongly urge a vote for Obama for president.
CityBeat’s recommendations on the ballot measures
City of Los Angeles: Proposition S:
Reduction of tax rate and modernization of communications users tax
We recommend: Yes
So you’re agitated and want to teach our city leaders a lesson not to be so misleading and duplicitous next time. Calm down. The fact is the city would suffer greatly if the estimated $270 million to be raised by this tax failed to show up at City Hall. We wish the mayor and City Council had been upfront and made it 10 percent so that it would be a straight replacement and update of the telephone tax now threatened by recent lawsuits. But they didn’t. They didn’t trust voters to understand the issues. But don’t punish them this time. You’ll just be hurting yourself. And don’t fall for the silly opposition talk that this will somehow be expanded to the Internet and your e-mails; federal law prohibits it.
California measures: Proposition 91:
Transportation Funds
We recommend: Yes
Remember in 2006 when you voted for Proposition 1A and thought you were approving $20 billion in transportation bonds? And remember last year when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stole $1.3 billion of that to balance the state budget? And remember when the governor took money from the sales taxes collected on gasoline to balance the state budget? This measure would stop much of that nonsense. This is one of those odd measures abandoned by its original backers – Transportation California and California Alliance for Jobs – who say Prop. 1A accomplished their goal of reserving gas tax dollars for transportation measures. Phooey. We urge a Yes vote anyways because we’re still fried about the way the governor stole the Prop. 1A money last year. But there is one valid reason to vote “No.” You prefer to channel your outrage about the beastly morning and afternoon commute into a mini-power plant capable of providing enough electricity for a small community.
Proposition 92: Community Colleges, funding, governance, fees
We recommend: Yes
The mistreated orphan of California’s once-hallowed higher education system, the community colleges, deserves your help. This measure would guarantee that fees stay reasonable and that the community college system get its share of Proposition 98 money.
Proposition 93: Limits on Legislators’ terms in office
We recommend: Yes or No
The only reason that the presidential primary got moved up from June to next Tuesday is to give Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and some of his closest legislative pals a chance for at least another term. Don’t be fooled by the title of this measure. What it does is simple: The current term limits law allows someone to serve a total of 14 years, but limits a legislator to three, two-year Assembly terms and two, four-year, state Senate terms. This would allow a legislator to serve a total of 12 years in either the Assembly, state Senate or both.
It doesn’t relax the limits but focuses power. Maybe you like that or not. We see benefits and downsides. Your vote should come down to not only what you think of the general state of affairs in Sacramento, but what rules you want to see enforced when the current players are gone. This should be more than a referendum on Nunez, and his taste for foreign travel and shopping sprees.
Generally speaking, term limits are a bad idea. Voters should have the good sense to knock out an incompetent or unethical nitwit at election time and shouldn’t need these arbitrary limits. On the other hand, incumbency wields power on its own and it can be hard to supplant the most corrupt. So, figure it out yourself.
Propositions 94, 95, 96, 97: Referenda on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact
We recommend: No
We hate sweetheart deals and broken promises, and these suckers are tainted by both of them. These compacts would give away the store to four of California’s richest Indian tribes. And the deals all go against the vow that Gov. Schwarzenegger made on the campaign trail in 2006, when he said he would negotiate compacts that provided the state a “fair share.” These don’t. They fail to even provide the loosest audit controls and greatly expand the Indian gambling that voters signed off on in 2000.
While it’s tempting to want to fill up our pockets at the ballot box with the millions of dollars the state would get from these compacts, we do not approve of the massive expansion of casinos. Nor is the money as much as it should be. These compacts and expansion plans are not well-considered and are the product of a great deal of infighting among the tribes involved, including expulsion of some members that raise questions of civil-rights violations. Voters should not see measures like this one, placed on the ballot by a governor desperately looking for new money so he can dodge the unavoidable, new taxes, and a legislature too cozy with its new supply of campaign money.
And don’t for a second think a Yes vote would be helping impoverished tribes. Four of the state’s wealthiest tribes – Agua Caliente, Morongo, Pechanga, Sycuan – would get to add up to 17,000 Vegas-style slot machines. The compacts call for up to $9 billion to dribble into staff coffers by 2030. Big deal.
This is a lousy business deal for California and leaves unions and environmental groups, who would seek to protect casino workers and surrounding communities from the impacts of these developments, wishing for justice – and your “No” votes across the board.
Published: 01/30/2008
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
Why i can not Support Barack Obama.
I am a owner of company in the Natural Health Industry and i employ over 2000 people.
Barack Obama Supports the WTO which as a result of the USA belonging to the WTO there will be a law which will outlaw the Natural Health Industry on Dec. 31, 2009 called Codex Alimentarius.
You can learn more about CODEX at http://www.healthfreedomusa.org
I as someone who own a company in this industry could NEVER vote for Obama..
When this law goes into effect you will no longer be able to buy vitamins at your local store you have to have a perscription from a licensed doctor in order to get vitamins.
GO to the likn about to learn more about these laws which will remove your freedom to use natural health products...
Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is a friend to the natural health industry...