Count Me Out: The Obama Craze by Matt Gonzalez

[spook]

Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn't much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama's voting record, and I'm afraid to say I'm not just uninspired: I'm downright fearful. Here's why:

This is a candidate who says he's going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I'd like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

Let's start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation ­ a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."

Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he's done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration's various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn't actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn't say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to "redeploy" the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama's plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

This is hardly a position to get excited about.

continued, addressing:

CLASS ACTION REFORM:


CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:


LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:


MINING LAW OF 1872:


REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:


ENERGY POLICY:



SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:



NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:


SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:

On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America's pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn't have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he's campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he'd employ a different border solution.

It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president ("Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable," USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn't even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold's effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold's words "I'm amazed at Democrats cowering with this president's number's so low." Once again, it's troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.

CONCLUSION:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about "change" and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama's style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I'm glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is running on Nader's ticket as a vice presidential candidate.



http://counterpunch.org/

[grrrr]

So this guy is opposed to Obama essentially because he isn't far enough left on every issue? Oh wait, he's Nader's running mate.

[slim]

Gonzalez is a class act dillhole.

[Adolf Allerbush]

So this guy is opposed to Obama essentially because he isn't far enough left on every issue? Oh wait, he's Nader's running mate.

Matt Gonzalez = attention whore

[Toadman]

Listened to Matt on the radio this morning. Basically what you posted was pretty much a good summary of where he stands on Obama. I guess he better get his butt over to Ohio and Texas and warn them about Obama before it's too late.

[DharmaBum]

Consider the source Spook. Politicians rarely discuss their opponents' records without creatively altering some of the facts to support their own position. Even Obama chooses his words and phrases carefully, with his audience in mind. Anyone with half a political brain should know that whatever a candidate says will be mitigated by the circumstances of the moment once that person takes office. Positions must be a least a little flexible, or you end up with a "No new taxes" blunder. Furthermore, who the hell is Matt Gonzalez? Other than learning this morning that he is Nader's running mate, I've never heard of him. Has anybody picked through his record yet? Does he have a record of opinions or stands on anything. How about instead of participating in "tear-down" politics, Gonzalez focuses on his own record and what he has to offer. I'm not gonna buy a Ford simply because the Ford salesman says that Chevy sucks. I want to know why a Ford would be better.

[spook]

Consider the source Spook. Politicians rarely discuss their opponents' records without creatively altering some of the facts to support their own position. Even Obama chooses his words and phrases carefully, with his audience in mind. Anyone with half a political brain should know that whatever a candidate says will be mitigated by the circumstances of the moment once that person takes office. Positions must be a least a little flexible, or you end up with a "No new taxes" blunder. Furthermore, who the hell is Matt Gonzalez? Other than learning this morning that he is Nader's running mate, I've never heard of him. Has anybody picked through his record yet? Does he have a record of opinions or stands on anything. How about instead of participating in "tear-down" politics, Gonzalez focuses on his own record and what he has to offer. I'm not gonna buy a Ford simply because the Ford salesman says that Chevy sucks. I want to know why a Ford would be better.

why do i need to consider the source? what facts you are suggesting gonzalez has creatively altered? everything i read is fairly common knowledge as far as i know. if you want to know what the nader/gonzalez platform is, you're welcome to go to their website.

i'm more interested in breaking through the shockingly thick wall of bullshit, particularly surrounding obama, but really, engulfing any of the remaining candidates, who offer nothing more than minor alterations to the status quo of inevitably collapsing empire, which is not sustainable in any form.

merely posting an article is not endorsement of anyone as a candidate.

[spindrift]

I'm not gonna buy a Ford simply because the Ford salesman says that Chevy sucks. I want to know why a Ford would be better.

I'm not even lined up with Clinton on much of her voting record -- but the persuasive power of Obama's dual messages of hollow "hope and change" and sleazy Rove-like gender based put-downs of Clinton impress me. And not in a good way. Going forward I'm not even going to try to debate the Obama-mania thing anymore. But I'm also not gonna be sympathetic if he wins and people get the rude surprise I expect.

But to the quote above - I am curious, what accomplishments can Obama brag about? How credibly has he addressed questions of skill/experience and ethics? Had Clinton not been saddled with the being "first" yet again the other night, do you think Obama could have answered "Medvedev"? I don't...

[Adolf Allerbush]

Had Clinton not been saddled with the being "first" yet again the other night, do you think Obama could have answered "Medvedev"? I don't...

Have you been in a debate before? In my experience you want to go first. It's a benefit to you. She's been given every benefit in her campaign and yet she's still not winning. At least not yet. I'm sure he would've dialed up Medvedev. Not that tough of a question...well maybe it is for you. I don't know.

[Arty50]

Ok, here's one for you:

With regard to warrantless wiretapping, Obama was the ONLY candidate of the three left to vote for an amendment which would have stripped telecom immunity from the final bill. McCain voted it down, Hillary didn't even show up, and Obama took time off the campaign trail to put his vote in. The amendment was defeated and the overall bill was passed.

For me this is the number one issue in the US right now. Our 4th Ammendment rights are being grossly trampled upon by the current administration. McCain wants to continue doing so, Hillary is ambivalent on the issue, but Obama is fighting it.

This program is so fucked it's not even remotely funny, and I'm thoroughly disgusted by the other two candidates for their implicit and complicit support of this program.

[nutcase]

I'm not even lined up with Clinton on much of her voting record -- but the persuasive power of Obama's dual messages of hollow "hope and change" and sleazy Rove-like gender based put-downs of Clinton impress me.

I must have missed the gender based put downs you are talking about. I did however witness the race baiting tactics the Clinton camp took during and after the South Carolina primary.

[13]

i'm more interested in breaking through the shockingly thick wall of bullshit.

seems like in your head you've already busted through that wall. now what are you gonna do? convince the internet masses to follow suit? good luck with that, kid.

some would say that obama is doing the same, while playing the game. i'd say he's doing a damn fine job for someone who hasn't been in washington as long as the others.

[spindrift]

Ok, here's one for you:

With regard to warrantless wiretapping, Obama was the ONLY candidate of the three left to vote for an amendment which would have stripped telecom immunity from the final bill. McCain voted it down, Hillary didn't even show up, and Obama took time off the campaign trail to put his vote in. The amendment was defeated and the overall bill was passed.

OK, here's one for you:

Go check the roll call votes. I did. That day. Obama was there for the vote on the amendment. And he voted the "right" way. Good for him. But he was weaseling the game just like the others. Just like so many legislators. Hope and change? Go find the roll call vote on the actual legislation. Yeah, the actual legislation that matters. See how he voted that very same day. Oh, he didn't. He went and got a nice soundbite for his audience in the AM and then left. On the real vote on the bill later that day, he was AWOL. The usual & cynical reason would be because he was too cowardly to be on record as opposing the real legislation. Same as Clinton.

Does this excuse the others in any way? No. But if you think Obama is playing any differently, you are smoking something. Have a nice time lapping up soundbites and superficial propaganda from the campaign of a guy who's slogan should probably be "more of the same - just with less knowledge and experience"...

[spindrift]

I must have missed the gender based put downs you are talking about. I did however witness the race baiting tactics the Clinton camp took during and after the South Carolina primary.

The put downs are not hard to see if you pay attention. His reference to the FL and MI primaries as "beauty contests". His statements cynically alluding to her getting "emotional" or "upset" (there has been so much pickup on this theme I can't even even find the exact quotes & attribution I'd like without wasting too much of my morning...). Like I said though - pay attention to the tone and wording employed. Nice "subtle" political work planting the notion that Clinton is emotionally unstable because she's "just a woman". It is pretty clear Axelrod has been a solid scholar of Rove...

As for the "race card" - I'd say it was thrown on the table by the Obama campaign when they preyed on America's lack of historical knowledge and civics - and lit a fire around Clinton's historically accurate statement regarding LBJ & MLK & legislation. Especially since she in no way, that I could see, disparaged MLK in any way. It was an opportunistic hatchet job.

[Conundrum]

Does this excuse the others in any way? No. But if you think Obama is playing any differently, you are smoking something. Have a nice time lapping up soundbites and superficial propaganda from the campaign of a guy who's slogan should probably be "more of the same - just with less knowledge and experience"...

Because the experience of the current legislators has worked out really well.

[spook]

seems like in your head you've already busted through that wall. now what are you gonna do? convince the internet masses to follow suit? good luck with that, kid.

some would say that obama is doing the same, while playing the game. i'd say he's doing a damn fine job for someone who hasn't been in washington as long as the others.

many people busted through that wall long before obama came along. anybody who pays attention to u.s. foreign policy, business or history and minimizes the filter of two centuries of propaganda is aware that the u.s. government is about empire.

they are also aware that obama offers nothing new but repackaged bullshit that poor traumatized americans want to hear and are accustomed to believing.

seeing so many middle class americans (not to mention wall street, et. al.) desperate for "hope" and "change," one would think the u.s. is the one that has been bombed incessantly for years, or that it is americans who are crossing borders to get low-wage jobs because some great empire has been destroying their economies, or that the school of the americas graduates have been plying their trade domestically or that the u.s. has been the victim of a 50 year embargo. obama is adept at capitalizing on societal cognitive dissonance.

i don't have to convince anybody, much less the "intelligentsia" at this website and i am certainly not foolish enough to believe i can given that so many far more dedicated individuals have failed miserably. that doesn't mean i'm not going to throw out a few ideas amidst the steady stream of obamaphiles, ron paul nutjobs and porn aficionados.

the u.s. public has believed it's own bullshit for too long and now reality is closing in hard and fast. there's nowhere left to go but down. nader can't stop it. mckinney can't stop it. gravel can't stop it. but they're closer to being honest about what is going on and they assert positions based more on reality and principle than propaganda and desired superiority.

The One Candidate Worth Our Vote
Nader the Best Antidote to American Imperialism

By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON

We want to express our strong support for Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy.

There are several reasons. The first is a response to the many who say that, because Obama cannot be seen to sympathize with the Palestinians or criticize Israel during the campaign, we should all lie low for now, not even press him on the issue, get him nominated and elected, and then work on him to change after he becomes president. With all due respect to this position, which we recognize as legitimate, and to those who believe this, we feel it is a pipe dream to expect that Obama will ever change after being elected on a platform of unquestioning support for Israel and its oppression of Palestinians. He will have huge debts of gratitude to the Jewish community, and particularly to his very pro-Israeli political endorsers as well as huge monetary debts to pro-Israeli contributors, that will keep him from ever looking honestly at what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and particularly from ever speaking out forthrightly against this oppression.

Secondly, Obama has taken an extremely immoral stand on the Palestinian-Israeli issue by, among other positions, actually applauding Israel's siege and starvation of 1.5 million innocent Gazans, and by mourning Israel's losses to Palestinian rocket fire (12 people in seven years) without bothering even to mention the approximately 2,600 Gazans killed by Israeli rocket fire, airstrikes, and assassinations in those same seven years. He made one reference last year to Palestinian suffering, was immediately dumped on by Jewish leaders, and has since said nothing honest about the occupation -- not even expressing support for the two-state solution.

This is so distasteful that it ought to be totally unacceptable to anyone who works for peace in the Middle East, not just in Palestine-Israel but also in the broader region. Many responsible people have said that Israel is committing or is nearing the commission of genocide against the Palestinians. How in God's name can we just sit back and wait for the Israel lobby to work its will before we complain to Obama about his silence?

There might be some mitigating factors here if Obama were truly committed to really ending the Iraq war, but his position on this is ambiguous and uncertain enough to make us believe that here too he is at least partly in the pockets of Israel and its supporters. Anything short of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq constitutes, in our view, a perpetuation of the militarism initiated by the Bush/Cheney/neocon/Israel conglomerate and backed by the centrist DLC. This is horrifying. We also see little hope elsewhere: although Obama is not bad on Iran, he wants to attack Pakistan!

Our concern about Palestine-Israel, and about the way that oppression of the Palestinians is always put on the back burner in the interests of not antagonizing a key voting bloc, is not overdrawn. U.S.-supported Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is the principal root cause of anti-American terrorism and of hatred of the U.S. around the world, particularly the Arab and Muslim worlds. However often Mubarak and the Kings Abdullah and Abbas assure us that there is nothing to worry about, that it does not really matter if Palestinians are oppressed, we should never forget that their people, the proverbial "street throughout the Arab world, do care and care very deeply. One day, the U.S. will pay dearly -- again -- for our obliviousness to Palestinian suffering. And that is quite apart from the hatred that Iraq and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo arouse.

We feel that Ralph Nader offers an alternative for anyone who longs for a candidate with principles, and we urge those who simply hope for the lesser of evils please not to interfere to limit our choices by denying him the right to run for election. Nader spoke very directly about Palestine-Israel and Iraq when he announced his candidacy on February 24, 2008, and we applaud him heartily. It's about time we saw a candidate with the courage of his convictions, the honor to speak out against injustice no matter how politically risky, and the guts not to sell his soul for the Jewish vote -- to say nothing of a readiness to speak out against the corporate interests that strangle us and limit our democracy.

As Nader himself said, if the Democrats can't win this election in a landslide, then they should fold their tent and reassess. He will not win the election, obviously. But if enough of us who care about the Middle East were to vote for him because he stands for a set of principles that greatly concern us all, then maybe we could send a message that cow-towing to Israel in order to get elected is not good enough. Some of us want some principle in the U.S. political scene, and only Nader offers this.

We will vote for him if he stays in the race. If he does not, we will probably -- and very deliberately -- not vote for president at all.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession. She can be reached at kathy.bill.christison@comcast.net.

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence officer and as director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.

They can be reached at kathy.bill.christison@comcast.net.


Freedom Rider: Progressives Cave to Obama by Black Agenda Report editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
http://www.blackagendareport.com/ind...d=539&Itemid=1

Obama’s White Male Voters: Do They Hear Something Blacks Don’t?
http://www.blackagendareport.com/ind...d=537&Itemid=1

"No longer would whites, especially males, be compelled to answer for their privileged status."

Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center: Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13974...on_center.html

In Texas debate, Obama counters Clinton attack by asserting his readiness to use military force
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/fe...prim-f22.shtml

The Great Global Power Shift: It’s Already Here
http://www.blackagendareport.com/ind...d=532&Itemid=1

What will Obama, or Clinton, or McCain do about it? They don't have a clue. And the American people understand the real world less than citizens of any other industrialized nation. Which means, as the crisis deepens, we won't know what hit us, here in what we thought was the center of the world.

[rideit]

I personally think that Rumsfeld and GWB should be legally tried and executed for absolutely destroying the USA.

And boy, did they have 'experience'.

[spindrift]

And boy, did they have 'experience'.

Actually, Bush had none. Other than a primarily titular governorship and generating negative shareholder value in a few businesses.

[spindrift]

And as long as I'm wasting time on this thread today - all anyone needs to know about Nader is that we can thank him for the Bush administration... Case closed.

[Adolf Allerbush]

The put downs are not hard to see if you pay attention. His reference to the FL and MI primaries as "beauty contests". His statements cynically alluding to her getting "emotional" or "upset" (there has been so much pickup on this theme I can't even even find the exact quotes & attribution I'd like without wasting too much of my morning...). Like I said though - pay attention to the tone and wording employed. Nice "subtle" political work planting the notion that Clinton is emotionally unstable because she's "just a woman". It is pretty clear Axelrod has been a solid scholar of Rove...

So when she shed some tears and Obama rightfully pointed out that she got emotional and/or upset that was all a ploy to make the American public think she's "just a woman"? Sounds like you and Clinton better grow some thicker skin. That doesn't even register as slightly inflammatory rhetoric in my book. Turn down the sensitivity meter. If she wins the Dem nod it's going to get a lot worse than somebody pointing out that she got "emotional" or "upset".

[Cono Este]

Like I said before, Obama is full of shit like the rest of them. "hope and change" is his ticket. Only this bullshitter is going to tax the hell out of the "rich" aka anyone who make over 90k a yr.

[Arty50]

OK, here's one for you:

Go check the roll call votes. I did. That day. Obama was there for the vote on the amendment. And he voted the "right" way. Good for him. But he was weaseling the game just like the others. Just like so many legislators. Hope and change? Go find the roll call vote on the actual legislation. Yeah, the actual legislation that matters. See how he voted that very same day. Oh, he didn't. He went and got a nice soundbite for his audience in the AM and then left. On the real vote on the bill later that day, he was AWOL. The usual & cynical reason would be because he was too cowardly to be on record as opposing the real legislation. Same as Clinton.

Does this excuse the others in any way? No. But if you think Obama is playing any differently, you are smoking something. Have a nice time lapping up soundbites and superficial propaganda from the campaign of a guy who's slogan should probably be "more of the same - just with less knowledge and experience"...

His attendance for both votes was well noted in most stories on this matter. In fact, one could argue (and I do) that his attendance for the vote on the final bill would have been a complete waste of his time considering the vote tally for the amendment. The amendment was more controversial than the final bill itself; so considering the dems completely folded on the amendment, the vote for the final legislation was a foregone conclusion. At that point it's better for him to go off and campaign so he can blow this up as president than to sit around and place a otherwise meaningless nay vote. Obama was one of the few who bothered to take a stand and I'm proud of him for doing so.

And just to blow your theory completely out of the water:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00309

He voted "nay" on the original Protect America Act. Do you really think his vote would have changed on the extension, especially in light of the fact of his vote on the amendment?

He has been outspoken about warrantless wiretapping in every speech and debate. His standing on this issue is not in question at all. He is one of our few elected representative who is completely opposed to this program in any shape and form.

[Kevo]

i'm more interested in breaking through the shockingly thick wall of bullshit, particularly surrounding obama, but really, engulfing any of the remaining candidates, who offer nothing more than minor alterations to the status quo of inevitably collapsing empire, which is not sustainable in any form.

...but what if I believe that Obama is the lesser of many evils that have any chance at getting elected and the most likely to change the status quo (however slightly in the long run) for the better to maybe, just maybe set the country on a better course?

[rideit]

Actually, Bush had none. Other than a primarily titular governorship and generating negative shareholder value in a few businesses.

However, according to Hillary's premise of proximity, being the son of a president gained him experience.

[Adolf Allerbush]

...but what if I believe that Obama is the lesser of many evils that have any chance at getting elected and the most likely to change the status quo (however slightly in the long run) for the better to maybe, just maybe set the country on a better course?

Agreed...and you never know...Spook may not be the ultimate expert on this stuff even though he comes off as so...although he does bring up some interesting alternative viewpoints.