As Senator Barak Obama continues to gain momentum in the Democratic primaries, what once appeared unlikely now appears within grasp: Obama will win the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Obama has now become the populist candidate, with droves of young adults coming out in support of the man that promises real “change” in Washington. So the question now becomes: If Obama wins the presidency, what should we expect from him and his policies?

 Obama is the epitome of a party loyalist. A recent article by MSNBC reveals just how much a loyalist that Obama really is. His voting record reveals that while he promises to unite both Republicans and Democrats, he himself rarely crosses party lines. In 2007 he voted with his fellow Democrats 97% of the time, 96% of the time in 2006, and 97% of the time in 2005. Is Senator Hillary Clinton right? Are Obama’s “words” really nothing more than empty rhetoric?

Obama certainly is the lone remaining candidate that conducts himself “presidentially”. And while I am not a party voter (meaning I would always vote Republican regardless of the qualifications and convictions of the candidate), I would not, in good conscience, be able to support either Obama (or Clinton). One of the things that concerns me greatly about Obama is the fact that he appears disingenous in his policies because they are not consistent with his public words about issues.

For example, Obama voted against appointing Supreme Court Justice John Roberts because Roberts “far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.” Without any further context to support Obama’s remarks, I don’t really know whether or not he is correct in assumption. But what I do know is that Obama’s voting record reveals the same kind of concerns.

Consider Obama’s vote in August 2007 concerning fetal rights. The Bush administration wanted to give states the option of covering unborn children in the State’s Children’s Healthcare Insurance program. 49 Senators voted yes. 50 voted no, including Barak Obama. Doesn’t this vote, a vote against health care coverage for the unborn, the same kind of opposition of the weak (unborn children) in favor of the strong (women’s right to choose) that caused Obama to chastise Roberts?

Or what about Obama’s vote to turn away a bill that would prevent circumvention of the required parental notification to parents of minors who want to travel across state lines to get an abortion if the state has such a law on the books? Or how about Obama’s vote to no longer give immunity to telecommunications companies who assist the federal government in survelliance of suspected terrorists without a warrant? If Obama has his way than telecommunication companies will be subjected to potentially frivolous and financially crippling litigation simply for cooperating with a government investigation intended to strengthen homeland security.

Obama may win the general election and become the first black President, and truth be told, it probably won’t spell doom for the United States. We had Presidents with liberal ideas and agendas in office before. But with at least one Supreme Court nomination on the line (Justice John Paul Stevens is 89), there should be concern as to what kind of judicial nominee an Obama presidency will bring to the floor because it will likely be a nominee at least as liberal as Judge Ginsberg, if not more, considering Obama has been labeled the most liberal Senator in the US Senate.

I have to wonder, with the evidence of Obama’s own voting record, if this man really intends to fulfill his promise to provide the kind of change that unites rather than divides? It seems to me that this will be the case only as long as this change is in line with his party loyalties and his own ambitious agendas for public policy. Obama’s record reveals that he is just as guilty of defending the cause of the strong over the weak as the charges he levies at more conservative politicians, legislators, judges, lobbyists, and more. It’s just that he has a different interpretation of  “strong” and “weak” than his opponents.

Advertisements