My endorsement for Sen. Barack Obama

Eight years ago, would you have voted for George W. Bush if you had known things would end up so terribly? Would you have voted for him if you’d known he would ring in the 21st century with a $10 trillion debt that will be passed along to your children and grandchildren?

If you had known that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction would you have sided with Bush on the war there? Even if you’d known that 4,100-plus American soldiers would die there to eliminate a dictator who was never a threat to U.S. lives? Do you continue to support the $600 billion war despite its 140,000 civilian deaths and millions of displaced families?

Debt and destruction only begin to describe what has been a disastrous administration. Private-sector job creation has been a sixth of what it was under Bill Clinton. Five million people have fallen into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown by 7 million, while average premiums have nearly doubled.

Bush’s economic policies have shift the relative tax burden from the rich to the rest. For the top 1 percent of us, the Bush tax cuts are worth, on average, about $1,000 a week; for the bottom fifth, about $1.50.


Sen. John McCain is not President Bush.

He’s worked hard over the past three months to convince you of that and to divorce himself from his embarassing ties to the president. But has he done enough to convince you he would be an appreciable change despite his voting record? How maverick could he be to have agreed with Bush a jaw-dropping 92 percent of the time?

In truth, McCain has become a demagogue of epic proportions. He abandoned his own immigration reform package because it wasn’t politically convenient. In February he voted against a ban on the torture techniques he’d denounced in the past.

His campaign has been characterized by meanness and lies, so much so that it seems obvious that he is willing to replicate some of the same underhanded methods that the Karl Rove machine deployed in 2000 to defeat McCain in South Carolina.

But even if McCain were a true “agent of change,” he’s run an unkind, laughable campaign beginning with the unsettling pick for vice president, Sarah Palin.

The Alaska governor and sprightly simpleton has been a terrible mistake from Troopergate and a $150,000 wardrobe to her disdain for the media and her charge that “pro-America” parts of the country vote red. How could America be expected to support a ticket where one of the candidates can’t even give you a good job description of the office she’s running for? (The vice president “controls the Senate???” What version of the Constitution was she reading?)

Palin has done much more to resurrect Lorne Michaels’ career than to boost McCain’s chances. She has no business being second in line to lead the country, especially considering her running mate is a 72-year-old man whose lifespan, it’s reasonable to expect, will be shaved by his time in a Vietnam torture cell.

Palin aside, McCain’s campaign has been a series of inane clichés: “Drill, baby, drill,” Joe the plumber, Robocalls. Come on. This nation — I hope — is smarter than that. We’re desperate for new ideas and a strong leader who will restore America’s confidence with the rest of the world.

On almost every issue, McCain and Barack Obama say they’ll bring reform, but only Obama has provided a convincing and developed vision. Obama is committed to reform that will restore economic stability while reducing taxes for the vast majority of the population.

Obama has called for greater regulation of the financial system and the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank, which would help patch roads, restore bridges and build mass-transit systems. His plan to transform the nation’s energy policy will mean 5 million green jobs over the next 10 years.

Say what you will about Obama’s relative inexperience. He was a state legislator from 1997 to 2004 and has been a U.S. senator since 2005. There are others who had less than Obama’s 11 years experience in elected office: Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. They all turned out pretty well.

His steady demeanor, careful analysis of the issues and eloquence are clear improvements over George Bush, who has governed not with intelligence and reason, but from the gut over the past decade. It’s time for the political pendulum to swing more toward careful reason, away from audacious authority for a few years.


Millions will vote for McCain on the notion he fits more with their moral code. But a closer look might change some minds.

In 1999 McCain said he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade. By 2006, he said its demise “wouldn’t bother me any.” This year he no longer supports adding rape and incest as exceptions to his party’s platform opposing abortion.

If abortion is the key point you’re voting on, then John McCain is your guy. That is, until he changes his mind when his position becomes inconvenient.

Catholics should remember that the church’s teaching gives consideration to a host of other important topics, like just conduct in war, a fair economy and working wages, and stewardship of the earth.

I submit that Obama’s view on each of these is decidedly more Catholic than his opponent:

* McCain has been an avid supporter of the deregulated conditions that led to the economic crisis of today. He notoriously said the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.” He has repeatedly sided with Bush on the most fiscally reckless administration in generations. McCain’s current plan to increase tax cuts could only exacerbate today’s dismal conditions.

Obama’s plan has its share of expensive and unrealistic goals, but it is surely more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health.

* Obama favors increasing the federal minimum wage.

McCain voted yes on legislation that would allow employers to pay less than the federal minimum wage if the state set a lower minimum. He has voted against raising the minimum wage 19 times.

The independent Tax Policy Center states McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes. It also states Obama’s tax cuts for the middle class will be three times those proposed by McCain. TPC’s Web site states, “Sen. Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.”

* McCain’s Republican every-man-for-himself ideology opposes publicly funded health care, universal health care or health coverage mandates. He favors tax credits of up to $5,000 for families to get health insurance. He doesn’t aim to do much to provide health care for those who can’t afford it.

Obama's health care plan would implement guaranteed eligibility for affordable health care for all Americans. His plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 18 million by 2009 and 34 million by 2018, covering nearly all children.

* The Sierra Club remarks that Obama has a "strong record of support for clean air, wetlands protection, and clean energy." The League of Conservation Voters in February gave McCain a 2007 score of zero on Senate votes the group sees as important for the environment. He has a lifetime rating of 24 (out of 100) by that group.

Rather than bending to the masses calling for offshore drilling, Obama’s environmental plan would reduce overall U.S. oil consumption by at least 35 percent by 2030 in order to offset imports from OPEC nations. Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided incentives to reduce national consumption of energy and to encourage a wide range of alternative energy sources.

* Since the war began in 2003, more than 4,100 American soldiers and more than 1 million Iraqi soldiers and civilians have died. Each one of these deaths could be considered senseless killings given the Bush administration’s admittance that their reason for war, weapons of mass destruction, never existed there.

The war in Iraq has been a national catastrophe both in Iraq and at home.

McCain has supported the war from its inception. Obama opposed it. He would pull the bulk of American troops out of Iraq in a reasonable amount of time. McCain cannot define victory and has no exit strategy.

Our country really has a chance to say something about itself this year, to resurrect its fading image around the world. Barring an unspeakable turnout of silent racists on Nov. 4, Obama should win in a landslide. He has convinced the vast majority of Americans he is the better, brighter, more believable candidate.

McCain’s clueless camp is busy pointing fingers and name calling.

For the first time ever the hallowed words “all men are created equal” will have a new, true meaning in America. The New Yorker put it this way: an Obama victory “could not help but say something encouraging, even exhilarating, about the country, about its dedication to tolerance and inclusiveness, about its fidelity, after all, to the values it proclaims in its textbooks.”

In his convention speech in Denver, Obama said, “Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.”

I think you’ll hear more of the same when he’s sworn in this January.