Friday, June 20, 2008

Obama, Part 1

Post 20:

This is a continuation of Wednesdays entry

We all know that I am a big McCain supporter and I have several issues with Obama. While I have posted them several times, mostly in the form of my entry on Obama's Advisors, I have not posted anywhere near the amount of issues that I have with him and his campaign. My three biggest concerns over Obama are: What is this change you refer to - Lets chat about universal health care - His arrogance about Ohio. Yes, I am well aware that the Ohio part is more or less there because I like the idea of my state getting more money into our economy, but so be it. Obama: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.

What is this change you refer to:
If the header text on your website says “change we can believe in” you better have some damn good change and some pretty good explanation of it. Obama's rhetoric is right on, the change is all nice looking and good sounding. For the record, Obama's Blueprint for change was not working when I was writing this, so I am using his list of issues. His positions on Civil Rights (along with disabilities) are nice, provided you ignore that it in no way helps gays. His statements on the economy, Health care, and poverty are nice, but they do not show what he will be able to do. Obama runs around, saying he will bring change, but then either does not show how he will or it becomes obvious that he has no power (Congressional area) to make those changes. Obama should back off a bit on some of his harder plans before they come back to bite him in the ass.

Lets chat about universal health care:
I am all for helping out those who need it, and I think that all people should be able to receive treatment. However, the question becomes, should it be the federal government that is paying for it? Sure, Canada and a few other countries (including Cuba, if you trust Michael Moore) have fairly good public health care but they also have some problems. I think that we should make this state-by-state, wait a few years, and view the results to see how it works. In some states this would be a good thing, however, others, might not be so good. This way, we make sure it has the best effect while trying to help all at the same time. No matter what, however, we should allow the wealthier to spend their own money (not using ANY taxpayers money) on their own care, if they so deem.

His arrogance about Ohio:
Recently Obama's camp said several things that could easily be taken to mean that he is disregarding Ohio and Florida for the November 270. Well let me tell you what, if you want to win 270 in November you have to win Ohio's 270 in November. To win this state you need to win Columbus, and the areas surrounding us (touched by 270). Furthermore, to win in November, you need to win Ohio. The path to 270 does not always need Ohio, but, based on the other states he thinks he can win, Ohio is the best bet. Think of this logically, why waste money on three states that Kerry lost by 3-7 points when you could spend that same money on one state that bush won by 1 point. Simple logic Obama, Ohio is the game. Plus, you know, My state needs money, as our economy is tanking. THAT IS RIGHT OBAMA, YOU NEED OHIO.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Editor of

Digg my article

Stumble It!


Anonymous said...

You are arrogant about thinking that Obama needs your vote or your state to win. He doesn't need you.

Barga said...

except that all analysts say that he needs Ohio to win

Anonymous said...

Look at the last two elections. Both came down to Ohio being one of the decisive states. We have a quite a few electoral votes, and we're a particularly volatile swing state.

Also, to imply that Obama or McCain "doesn't need" any one state's votes is entirely counterproductive.

Barga said...

My point was that Ohio is important
however, Utah is clearly Republican so it is fine to write that one off

Mountain Sage said...

According to an article I just posted on my blog, Obama is the least qualified presidential candidate in 64 years.

Barga said...

The thing is, why are we saying that experience is that big of a deal?

First, we need to define experience, then we need to show that the candidate has none

how are you defining it?


You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.