Hey Samuelson...
White Women(51% of the Population) have been the Greatest Benefactors from the (Affirmative Action Plan) Not Afro-Americans) Afro-American Women have also Benefitted... Thats Exactly White Women in America, why they demand that it still Stand as Law. Because they Benefitted from this Law, More than Anyother an still DO !!
Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, E. Indians & The Handicapped.
If (Affirmative Action) made Atonement for Slavery, why is there such a High Un-Employment rate in Afro-American neighborhoods ?
Why is it, that When you enter a Building, You see a Predominant amount of White Males , White Females (Majority), Then comes Black Females and then a SMALL AMOUNT of Afro-American males in a Office...Hmmmm
That Trend Exist in the South, North & West.....Some of You People, along with Samuelson, are just Plain Hateful Predjudice People.
JUDGMENT CALLS
Robert J. Samuelson
6/12/08: NEWSWEEK's Daniel Gross breaks down McCain's and Obama's economic plans and finds both sides on familiar ground. (Video: Ira Spitzer)
Vote for McBama
When it comes to America's obvious domestic problems (retirement programs, immigration, energy policy) neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has offered real solutions.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
For the party faithful, this is a sweet moment. They have their candidates and, whatever the obstacles, can still imagine victory in November. But the rest of us ought to remember that the politics of winning and governing often collide. The first involves maximizing popularity. The second requires farsighted choices that ultimately benefit the country but may initially hurt a president's approval ratings. What have we learned about the candidates' capacity for governing? Enough, I think, to temper the excitement.
6/12/08: NEWSWEEK's Daniel Gross breaks down McCain's and Obama's economic plans and finds both sides on familiar ground. (Video: Ira Spitzer)
Start with Barack Obama. Even those who disagree with him ought to feel pride in his impending nomination because it continues America's racial reconciliation and atonement for slavery. But symbolism can't substitute for policy, and any feel-good fallout from electing Obama would soon fade. He'd have to earn popular support, and this would be made harder by a problem of his own making: he'd have to disavow much of his campaign rhetoric. The reason is that his campaign is itself a contradiction.
On the one hand, he projects himself as the great conciliator. He uses the metaphor of his race to argue that he is uniquely suited to bridge differences between liberals and conservatives, young and old, rich and poor—to craft a new centrist politics. On the other hand, his actual agenda is highly partisan and undermines many of his stated goals. He wants to stimulate economic growth, but his hostility toward trade agreements threatens export-led growth (which is now beginning). He advocates greater energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
All this reflects Obama's legislative record. From 2005 to 2007, he voted with his party 97 percent of the time, reports the Politico. But Obama's clever campaign strategy would put him in a bind as president. Championing centrism would disappoint many ardent Democrats. Pleasing them would betray his conciliating image. The fact that he has so far straddled the contradiction may confirm his political skills and the quiet aid received from the media, which helped him by virtually ignoring the blatant contradictions.
And what does the straddle tell us of him? Aside from ambition—hardly unique among presidential candidates—I cannot detect powerful convictions in Obama. He seems merely expedient in peddling his convenient conflicts. He strikes me as a supersuccessful graduate student: the brightest, quickest, most articulate guy in the seminar. In his career, he has advanced mainly by talking and writing—not doing—and may harbor a delusion common to the well-educated: that he can argue and explain his way around any problem.
By contrast, no one can claim that McCain lacks convictions. He has often defied Republican Party orthodoxy, and his credentials to lead a centrist coalition are stronger than Obama's. According to Politico, he sided with his party only 83 percent of the time from 2005 to 2007. Even in this election year, he has taken unpopular positions. Note his criticism of farm subsidies, which won't help him in the Midwest. The trouble with McCain is that he often mistakes stubbornness for principle.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss