Friday, September 28, 2007
Response to post 2 - due October 2nd
You can post to either post 2 on the post 2 strand or here. Either is fine. Your response post is due 10/2. Remember the goal is for everyone to get a response. Please do not respond to someone's post if they already have more than 1 response. Please attack the ideas/argument of the person & not the person her/himself. Also, please respond in a manner which fosters rather than shuts down dialogue. Thanks. Good luck. M. Aby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
Again I have more than one response....
Response to prisbaby:
I just wanted to say that I think your very last sentence in your post makes a very good point. I agree that government shouldn't be making decisions on whether or not a woman can get an abortion or not or who can and can't get married. To me those types of things don't even seem like they should be issues because obviously I think that women should have the freedom of choice and people shouldn't be restricted on who they can marry. I think that time could be much better spent making the United States a better more peaceful place rather than just putting more and more unneccessary restrictions on the people's lives. Putting these types of restrictions on people seems to me as more of a step backwards for our country because it would just be putting up more walls around the freedoms that this country prides itself on. That is why I think that there should be a leader who creates more options for citizens instead of just being negative. So basically I think that your last sentence sums up what our country needs.
~Asia ;)
Response to Melissa Nemcek:
I think that for any person to be an "extremely capable President of the United States," (taken from your post) that person should at least be able to recognize the First Amendment, specifically the part about freedom of religion. From information that I found about Mike Huckabee it states that he is associated with the 'Reclaim America for Christ Conferences', whose mission is to come together to reclaim this land for Christ. For someone running for the presidency to be associated with a group such as that makes it seem as though they are a "bit" confused as to what the First Amendment is stating. I don't think that the non-Christian part of our society would very much appreciate the president pushing his beliefs upon them. I think that any one who wastes their time trying to pass something as silly as a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman (what a waste of amendment/constitution) and spends their time ignoring an amendment that already exsists should automatically be put into the "extremely incapable candidate for President of the United States" category.
~Toasty ;)
Sites for that last post:
http://www.quickoverview.com/election2008/mike-huckabee-overview.html
www.mikehuckabee.com
.....let me know if you can't get that long website to work....
Response to jbecker:
I just figured I would join you in the club of young African American women who won't be voting for Barack Obama in this upcoming election. (not so surprising) I agree with you on the point of Obama not being really ready for presidency, but the reason that makes me sway away from Obama a little more than his inexperience is his connection with the black community. I think that if a person is as close to being the first African American President of the United States as Barack Obama, they should have a much better and stronger connection/relationship with the African American community. And I've also decided that Obama just isn't quite liberal enough for me.
~Esia...(another nickname for asia)
To: Silas
From: Molly
I absolutely agree with the point that you made about Senator Obama. I, too, was initially impressed with him and thought he would bring something new and different to office if he were to be elected. I was quite disappointed, however, when I learned about his stance regarding missile strikes in Pakistan, and possibly sending in troops to hunt down terrorists (Obama said this after Hillary Clinton called his foreign policy skills “naïve” and “irresponsible” during a public disagreement) (1).
I honestly do not think that this is the best idea, and it seems strange to me that Senator Obama would say something like that after spending so much time emphasizing how much he is against the war in Iraq. To go in to Pakistan would risk destabilization and would be deeply resented because, according to the Pakistani Foreign Office, it would violate international law (2).
I do still agree with Obama’s stance on many other issues, such as ending the current war, improving schools, and protecting the environment (3), but do not side with him at all when it comes to this issue. I consider myself very anti-war, and agree with you that through this statement, Obama probably did lose much of this group’s vote.
1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/
3. http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
To: Alex Zayed
I believe that we share many views about Senator Obama. His goals regarding universal healthcare, his ideas for revitalizing education through traditional and non-traditional approaches and his disapproval of the death penalty are things that you and I both appreciate (http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/). By reading his book and listening to him speak, I can tell that not only is he intelligent and thoughtful, but that he has a certain power that could unite America in a way few presidents have been able to do (The Audacity of Hope).
That being said, I cannot support Senator Obama for president. You expressed concern over his foreign policy agenda and so do I. His comments about Pakistan were callous and irresponsible, but they were not an anomaly. Despite his disapproval of the war, he consistently show support for a general War on Terror, (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/strengtheningamerica/) in the form of destroying conventional and nuclear weapons. So far, he has done this with successful legislation, but when he is commander-in-chief, he will have more power to carry out his agenda in whatever way he sees fit. I do not believe that his way, as demonstrated by his Pakistan gaffe is the right way.
Senator Obama accuses the Bush administration of "respond[ing] to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past," claiming that fighting terrorism on a country by country basis was "tragically misguided." (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html) Is this not the same type of action he advocated for Pakistan? We need a new way to fight our enemies, but until one is found, we cannot rush in to situations like Iraq and hope that they will be different. They will not be. Aren’t Afghanistan and Iraq evidence enough?
In conclusion, I believe that Senator Obama is a very powerful and compassionate candidate, but that his foreign policy agenda is too similar to the current administration's, and I cannot support him.
To: Libby Tousignant
I agree with your argument, and would like to add to it supporting why Fred Thompson should not become the next president of the United States. I did my president project on him thinking that he would be an interesting candidate to do. I soon found him to be extremely conservative in his views on many issues and unknowledgeable.
Thompson has extremely conservative views on many issues and some Republicans have actually labeled him as the new “Reagan” (1). Like you said, he is against abortion rights and for the war in Iraq (2). At this point, he and his views on these issues are not the direction our country should go in.
Thompson does not seem very knowledgeable on many key issues and of things in general. Like you said, he does not have a clear plan on how to solve our dependence on foreign oil. He also does not outline a clear plan on how to reduce our CO2 emissions (3). Thompson also has been making a fool of himself by what he has said in speeches on the campaign trail, and he has not even finished a month of campaigning yet. A good example of this is when he was campaigning in Texas, he announced that he would attend a debate in New Hampshire that had been cancelled months ago (4). These types of mistakes and lack of clarity on plans to solve problems remind me of someone: President Bush. I do not want another president like him to take his place in the Oval Office.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091902184.html
2. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/fred.thompson.html
3. http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx
4. http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/09/fred_brings_his.php
Josh,
I agree with your decision to support Ron Paul in the 2008 election. While I agree with what you said in your post, I am interested in your thoughts on who you think Mr. Paul will get the greatest support from. Based on some of his issues and beliefs, Mr. Paul is not exactly the prototypical Republican (1). This was brought up in an interview he did earlier with Stephen Colbert (2). In the interview he mentions that he considers himself a constitutionalist, like you mentioned in your post. However, this causes him to be quite different than a typical candidate in his party. Also, while you call Mr. Paul a moderate Republican, others may consider him quite extreme (3). For example, he is also the only Republican that opposes the Iraq War. This could harm him by eliminating all Republican voters who still support the war, or it could help him if it can get him enough Republican support from the Republicans who are sick and tired of the war. This leaves Mr. Paul in an interesting situation for getting support for the 2008 election. I am wondering what you think these affects will have on Mr. Paul as he attempts to win the Republican nomination? Also, is there any certain type of person you believe Mr. Paul will get a majority of support from?
1. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE72V5dJ5Jg
3. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4477.html
This is in response to Melissa Nemcek (who supported Mike Huckabee for president):
Most of the important qualities you argue Huckabee has that win your vote can also be found in other candidates. As an example, nearly all of the presidential hopefuls have leadership experience that has been nationally praised (I suppose we could look to Guiliani’s crisis management post-9/11 in New York as an example, since you mentioned Mike Huckabee’s crisis management skills too). You also stress the importance that Huckabee met with voters and got to know the people face to face, but he is in no way the only candidate that does this either. Candidates meet with potential supporters on a daily basis and participate in public debates and forums on a regular basis as well. So Huckabee isn’t so different from his fellow candidates in those areas, which just condenses support for him down to his foreign and domestic policies.
A new issue that I’ve found that worries me is that Huckabee, while he may support energy independence, which I guess you can argue will lead to energy reform, he has little to nothing to say about the issue of global warming. In an interview with Newsweek when he was asked about whether or not it would be an issue he would choose to address, his only answer was “I don’t try to get into the middle of the science of global warming.” (1) Okay. I guess we could avoid thinking too hard about global warming for a few years, the ice caps won’t melt that much, right?
Also, you make the argument that Huckabee would be a good president because he doesn’t make broad statements attempting to meet a large amount of people’s views, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true either. In the same interview, Newsweek asked what he thought about women being preachers in Baptist churches twice and he avoided the question both times, choosing instead to state “It’s not an issue for me.” Huckabee also makes a statement in the interview that he has “enough of a challenge being obedient to God in [his] own life than to try to dictate someone else.” The only problem I see with this is that if he were to become president, he would have to be put into the position of “dictating” the whole country, if not the world through international policies.
Another aspect of Huckabee’s policies is that I think he emphasizes too heavily on his faith. Huckabee told a Baptist convention that “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ,” (2) Call me crazy, but I don’t want a president representing us who apparently has a blatant disregard for the religious diversity that exists in America today. You emphasized the importance of a politician who knows and understands the public, but Mike Huckabee seems to be more ignorant of the general public’s beliefs than he is understanding. Ira Forman puts it best I think when she states that “he apparently still doesn’t understand the difference between his role as a preacher and his role as a potential president.” (3)
Internationally, I think Huckabee is ignorant to the point where I believe it to be offensive, and domestically I still strongly believe that he doesn’t approach important public policies properly (Please see my previous post for greater detail).
We need a president capable of representing American values as a whole. You make a good point when you say he’s not willing to change his views to get the approval of the moderate public, but that could be the reason he’s not the best for president as well. If he were president, he wouldn’t be representing everyone as best as he could, he would only stand to be representation for a small political faction of the country. Sometimes, it’s better to have policies that appeal to the larger public, because then they’re more willing to allow you to represent them in the first place.
1.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17472524/site/newsweek/page/5/
2.http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259439.htm
3.http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14483
I agree with Asia and Amy’s responses that Mike Huckabee is not a capable candidate. I do not think that he will be able to lead a country while maintaining freedom of religion when he boldly makes statements on his website such as “I don’t separate faith from my personal and professional life” and “Faith does not influence my decisions, it drives them” (www.mikehuckabee.com). Clearly, if he is the president of a country without an established religion, he will have to find something else, perhaps public opinion, to drive his decisions.
Despite the statements on his website that we should never seek to impose religion and that he has respect for atheists (which I highly doubt), he has been quoted saying “I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ in our lives” (www.thejewishweek.com). If he became president, I don’t think that it would be possible for him to keep his religion to himself, which I think would pose a problem for many nonreligious Americans.
I also agree with Asia that creating a constitutional amendment defining marriage is a waste. There are so many issues right now that are so much more important; he should not concentrate his attention on passing an amendment about marriage. Although I like that he feels strongly about his moral values and wants to bring them into his decisions, I think that he should do so without connecting them to his faith. He seems to think that religion is a prerequisite for morality.
Response to Tony
I have to say that you make some good points when you explain why you support Ron Paul. I believe that it is true that we need a moderate in the White House. Also the fact that Ron Paul would most likely stick to what he says and is willing to not forcibly spread foreign policy would be great. I think that what we have started, we now need to clean up. (when I say we I mean our Government) Way to go for supporting the underdog.
It’s true that Ron Paul has a consistent voting record when it comes to his views on abortion and several other issues, but overall his votes do not match up with either the Democratic or Republican Party’s opinions. From January 2005 to July 2007 Ron Paul’s votes in Congress only matched the GOP opinion about 54% of the time and the DEM opinion 58% of the time (1). Since he considers himself a constitutionalist and does not associate directly with either of the two major parties, Mr. Paul will have a hard time finding a concrete voter base (2).
Other criticisms of Ron Paul include his arguably radical (rather than moderate) stance on some issues. For example, the Democrat who he beat for his seat in Congress in 1996 accused him of being pro drug legalization, pro-prostitution and anti-minimum wage (3). In addition, Mr. Paul actually admits that his support of cutting down the budget may be the reason he is not receiving committee assignments (3). Also, Ron Paul would attempt to overturn the decision of Roe vs. Wade and leave the issue of abortion up to the states to decide (4). In my opinion, an issue as widely debated as abortion should have a united resolution. If each state had different laws regarding a women’s right to choose there would be much chaos throughout the country.
Overall I don’t think that Ron Paul is the best candidate for the presidency based on his lack of a voter base and his support of several issues I disagree with.
(1)http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/key-votes/ (2)http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45231,00.html
(4) http://marcg.net/blog/archives/150
Sorry my post was in response to Josh Vincent!!!!
To: TonyB
I agree with you that Ron Paul is a great candidate for president. His constituitonalist stances would be a nice change from recent presidents. Unfortunately, as Heather pointed out, his votes do not match very well with either the Republican or the Democratic stances. This has proven a problem for him in this election, having only 3% of the Republican vote (1). This means that in order for Dr. Paul to get a nomination he would almost definitely have to run as a third party candidate. This does not make it impossible for himi to become president, but third party candidates have a significantly harder time raising funds. Even as a major party candidate Dr. Paul has only been able to raise $3 million (2). Even with these obstacles I believe that Dr. Paul, if he steps up his campaigning, would be a great president because of his predictable voting patterns. His constitutionalist views would be a good way to stabilize the government and bring it towards a more unified system concentrating on the document behind it all, the Constitution.
(1)www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep
(2)www.opensecrets.com/pres08
TO: Jaz
I agree with you, I think it is too early for Mr. Obama to run. The most concerning thing to me is his experience, not necessarily his platform. How are we supposed to trust and support a person who�s had a track record of eight years? I�m not saying he will make bad decisions, because I don�t know that. I�m saying that it is impossible to predict how he is
going to act once in office. Most other candidates have long records that allow us to look back and see what they�ve supported in the past, what they have flipped on and how their opinions change when it comes toward election time.
Plenty of people have said that they don�t support Obama because he misspeaks. I think that�s less of a concern than the blatant fact that he has a vanishingly small political record.
While I was researching on what to say I came across Obama�s Website and this struck an inquisitive chord. It has nothing really to do with your post Jaz, but I thought I�d say something.
I suppose I might be dull- witted in stating that Obama seems to be at odds with his own foreign policy. He wants out of Iraq, that�s for sure. But he also says he wants to go straight to helping Sudan, Liberia and Congo. To stop genocide, a warlord, and innocent people dying from �war related conflict�. Forgive me if I�m woefully uninformed, but this sounds a bit familiar to me. I�m also curious to know how we are supposed to go fixing these problems without force, providing money is providing the means for force. Is providing different from doing?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/strengtheningamerica/
www.USATODAY.com
To Molly
From Rachel
After reading your post, I would have to say that I agree with you when you state that the candidate you are most opposed to is Mike Huckabee. While I was reading through all of our presidential candidate handouts, Huckabee's was the one that I disagreed with on most of the points. For my response, I chose some of the points on his website that you didn't mention in your post.
First of all, I don't agree with his emphasis on religion. On his website, he states, "My faith is my life- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives me," (1). I think someone who is running so president shouldn't be so over the top about expressing their faith because religion is sort of a private part of someone's life. Also, I feel that a president who is so big on their religion will try, either unintentionally or intentionally, to press his religion on the country in his policy-making and his decisons. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and a president who prides religion as a prime part of his or her life might not be as accepting of other religions.
Another reason why I disagree with Huckabee is that he is pro- life on the issue of abortion. On his website, he writes, "I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life...I believe Roe vs. Wade should be overturned," (2). My belief is that a woman should have a right to have an abortion in any situation. If a woman doesn't want to have a child under any circumstances and gets pregnant, I think the mother will be better off because she wouldn't have been able to or willing to give her child the love and care it deserves. A child deserves the right to have parents that want to be it's parents. Abortion should also always be there in the case of teenage pregnancy or rape.
Mike Huckabee also feels that "music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable...they are essential." He also says, "Our future economy depends on a creative generation," (3). I disagree with arts and music being essential courses at school. I think it's ridiculous because personally I am not big on art, singing, or playing an instrument. I'd much rather be spending my time doing more science or physical education courses. Lastly, creativity alone is not going to help our future economy.
For this respnse, I chose some less common issues seen in our posts. Mostly I have seen writing on the war, health care, and immigration. But, I also disagree with Huckabee on his views on the war, which are that "withdrawal is a mistake" (4) and his views on health care, which is in opposition to universal health care. So, in conclusion, the point I am trying to prove is that in my personal opinion, Mike Huckabee is the candidate that I would be least likely to vote for the country's next president.
Sources:
1. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9
2. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=11
3. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=7
4. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=8
To: Lauren Vann
I have to agree with you on a lot of your points. Rudy Giuliani is using his moderate conservative views to his advantage to grab voters from all over the board.
I agree that he is a very strong candidate at this point in the election, considering his ability to attract all kinds of voters.
However, there are a few key points about him that might dissuade people from electing him president. First I have to get the personal thing out of the way. As Lauren mentioned, there was that whole messy “getting married to his second cousin” thing, followed by a few divorces and rather public affairs. I myself don’t think personal issues are that much of a defining factor when it comes to politics, in part because I kind of resent the Puritans. But that’s beside the point.
Giuliani has managed to stay pretty liberal in his views while still being up for Republican nomination, which can’t be said for a lot of people. However, this also presents him with a problem. He has notably flip-flopped on a few big issues, such as abortion and gay marriage.
I myself don’t think I’ll vote for him because of his policies on the Iraq war. He has no exit plan and believes pulling out our soldiers will be a sign of weakness, which I disagree with entirely. Other than that, he is a decent candidate and is doing a lot better than a lot of his competition.
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
Response Post #2
In response to Katie Wutchiett’s post:
I definitely would not write off Edwards as a presidential candidate immediately, partly because of his energy plan that is called the “most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate (1)”. He is the one presidential candidate for the 2008 election really focused on saving our environment. Some of his promises include decreasing greenhouse gas pollution by 15% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 and developing a climate treaty committing other countries, not just the United States, to reduce pollution. The part that stood out to me the most was creating a New Energy Economy Fund, which will fund research and development in energy technology and invest in efficient automobile technology, among other things (1). To create this new fund, he suggests repealing subsidies for big oil companies and auctioning $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits (1).
Edwards also seems to be one of the candidates that may surprise us. Currently, he is in third place for the Democratic nomination. In a poll done by The Des Moines Register, however, Edwards’ priorities on energy conservation seem to be putting him ahead in predictions for the Iowa caucus. Among Iowa Democrats, Edwards finished with 36% of the favoritism, finishing 20% higher than Hillary Clinton and 23% higher than Barack Obama (2). According to the Register, Iowans “really, really like him (2).”
A fresh way to look at Edwards’ energy plan is the fact that his energy plan would create up to one million new jobs (3). The Edwards energy plan would revitalize and stimulate our economy as we save the world. This energy plan isn’t necessarily going to stunt our economy’s growth, as several people have used as an argument to ignore the issue. The plan could even lead to development of new industries (3).
(1)http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/
(2)http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1570071,00.html
(3)http://www.bloggernews.net/15398
Michelle L.
I agree with many of your reasons for why Dennis Kucinich would be a president. However, I feel that some of the important, and more interesting, aspects of his views that set him apart from the other candidates were left out in your blog. While Kucinich and other Democrats agree on many issues, he is the only one to mention, much less make a priority of withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO. He reasons that withdrawing from these organizations would help keep more jobs in the United States and protect human rights. While he clearly has good intentions, to me, withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO would be a radical decision that shouldn’t be made lightly. This, along with his overall foreign policy, leans towards isolationism. While I admire his willingness to think outside of the box, I feel that isolating the United States economically would be taking a step backwards in progress. With new technology, different nations are becoming more and more interconnected. If different nations work together they can make things better for everyone. The United States most certainly needs to stop policing the world, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work together with other countries.
Christina R,
I must take issue with several points you mentioned about Mitt Romney. While none are incorrect about him, your information neglected to look at the other side of many of the issues. Mitt Romney does in fact oppose stem cell research, but he completely ignores the fact that there are 400,000 frozen embryos currently in clinics that would be destroyed as a result of banning research on them (1). Mitt Romney says he is pro-life, but by supporting legislation that would encourage the destruction of these embryos that could be put to quality, medically sound research, he is not supporting the life of many people that are currently paralyzed that could be potentially helped along in their recovery by research on the embryos. Mitt Romney is ignoring the facts on this point, and merely pandering to religious conservatives. He also says he is against abortion except in cases of �incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother� (2), but neglected the fact that it would be impossible to legislate to these exceptions. With current science, it is impossible to determine what is rape versus consensual sex, and anyways, somebody could just claim they were raped and still ask for an abortion. The only feasible way to legislate abortion is to either completely outlaw it (in which case many illegal and possibly unsafe abortions would still occur), or support choice- the choice to have it available. Nobody is pro-abortion, but even if you support exceptions to abortion laws, you must completely allow its availability given the difficulty in legislating exceptions and difficulty in enforcing these exceptions. One cannot be halfway on this issue, and I find it ridiculous when conservatives like Romney try to be lukewarm on this issue without specifically outlining their legislative plans.
In conclusion, Mitt Romney consistently ignores science and common sense when arguing that stem cell research is unethical, when in fact, it is most certainly more unethical to support legislation that would mandate their destruction. Also, his position on abortion is illogical, given the difficulties in legislation I have mentioned above.
-Silas Berkowitz
1.http://thehill.com/business--lobby/stem-cell-issue-casts-light-on-frozen-embryos-2005-09-21.html
2.http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values
I am responding to the post from Alyssa Vongries. Although Rudy Giuliani is not the candidate I support most at this point, he is second candidate I would most likely vote for. One thing that Alyssa mentioned that I feel is a good reason for Giuliani to be president is his experience. According to Giuliani‘s site, “He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus” (1). It also states that he lowered welfare rolls by 60% with a welfare-to-work initiative. There was also a 72% drop in criminal related shootings while Giuliani was in office. He also handled the situation in New York after 9/11 remarkably well, which is why Time Magazine named him person of the year (1). I think information like this shows that he is a capable leader, and I think he would be able to effectively run the country.
I also believe that because he is more moderate, he could get more votes than candidates who are very conservative or very liberal. However, I do feel that his flip flopping on certain issues, for example, gay rights and abortion, could lose him potential voters.
I personally would like Giuliani to be more pro-life, but I am glad that he opposes partial birth abortion. Also, abortions in New York decreased by 16% while Giuliani was in office, while adoptions went up by 66%, which would encourage pro-life supporters to also vote for him (1). I am also glad that Giuliani supports domestic partnerships and giving gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples.
However, I would like to hear a more decisive plan on Giuliani’s part for what he wants to do with the war in Iraq. I was glad to read that an essay he wrote, Giuliani explained that he would listen to the news from General Petraeus about the war more than what he hears from liberals or conservatives (2). I think it is wise of him to listen to military leaders who know more of the actual situation in Iraq.
1. http://www.joinrudy
2.http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
To Lauren Vann
I disagree with some of the points you made for mayor Giuliani. First of all being a mayor, no matter how large the city is relatively little political experience entering a presidential race. Also, with the divorces one of his cousin and one affair when his wife fell sick he loses many religious conservatives as well as some of Dahl’s “voting apolitical strata” based on the immoral actions taken in his personal life. As for being a good speaker I’m sure he is. However, I expect any politician to be a good public speaker with the exception of our current president because speaking is more or less how they rally support, if they are a bad speaker chances are they are relatively unheard of.
Another major issue I have with Giuliani is that I feel he is running on the post 9/11 platform. That is that he would not be on anyone’s radar had we never been attacked. The United States has more diverse issues and points of emphasis that Giuliani has not addressed effectively in his agenda. Most notably to me is I cannot accept that being a mayor even of a big city gives you the tools necessary to lead a country. Especially a country with as many issues at hand as the United States. He is unprepared to deal with the diverse spectrum of influence that he must cover when governing a country having only ever thought on a local scale. Southerners have totally different views from New Yorkers where as only having a city to govern he is used to a mostly homogenous group of people, which nationally America is not.
www.ontheissues.org
www.time.com
www.joinrudy2008.com
To:Kendra
From:Lauren Vann
I disagree with Kendra's praise of Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich is the only candidate who really just boggles my mind. First of all, I am strongly against universal healthcare. With universal healthcare, not only are patients unable to choose their doctor but it can take hours just to see one. I support the way the healthcare system is right now because patients have the ability to choose a doctor and where they go to receive healthcare. Also, universal healthcare would raise taxes exponentially.
Another thing I am against is his Iraq policy. Kucinich advocates immediate withdrawal from Iraq and to fund a peacekeeping mission in Iraq. First of all, immediate withdrawal would be a very poor choice because this leaves the door open to invasion of surrounding countries and makes our country appear weak. Second, I can almost guarantee that a peacekeeping mission would hardly be effective because many people in Iraq are unwilling to compromise. Also, I don;t think many U.S. citizens would want to fund the peacekeeping mission. I just think that Dennis Kucinich's ideas are way to radical to suit America.
www.dennis4president.com
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6123.htm
To Christina R
I find Mitt Romney to be one of the more ridiculous candidates. One such instance is his idea that we can halt illegal immigration with “tamper proof documentation.” This idea seems unfeasible and far too expensive. Furthermore, documentation alone will not stop illegal immigrants from crossing the borders. If illegal immigrants are not able to find jobs legally, they will just find a job illegally instead. Once in America, these illegal immigrants are determined to stay and a single piece of documentation cannot stop them.
As for Romney’s “pro-life” stance, Romney is notoriously known to have changed his stance from pro-choice to pro-life since he announced his 2008 presidential candidacy. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported several pro-choice measures. Some days, Romney wanted a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide. Other days, Romney said that he would allow some states to keep abortion legal. With Romney, it is impossible to tell if his stance on abortion will not change within the next few weeks. Flip-flopping on abortion and other issues has been one of the main criticisms of Mitt Romney.
I agree with Christina in that I like Romney’s stance on education. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney passed the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program. This program was to reward the top twenty-five percent of Massachusetts high school seniors with a four year, tuition free scholarship to any Massachusetts public university or college. Most of our AP Government class would fall into this category. Because I am approaching college expenses myself, I was fairly impressed with this program.
I also agree with Christina in that Romney’s Mormon religion should not determine his ability to be president. The First Amendment protects the religious rights of American citizens. The president cannot impose organized religion on the United States. Similarly, the first amendment should protect Romney from getting kicked out of the election just because of his Mormon faith.
Though I disagree with Romney on almost all of his stances, he still has a few decent qualities.
Sources:
http://www.mittromney.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202863.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100634.html
http://ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm
Response to Obama supporters
Although a few months ago I too would have given my full support to the democratic candidate Barack Obama, but in light of his recent statements concerning his agenda in Pakistan, his trigger-happy ideology is one I cannot support. By the recent approval ratings of President Bush, it is apparent that Americans are not looking for a leader that will bring us into more conflict. In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal. Obama’s statements exemplifies the “Bush Doctrine” in its willingness to provide rationale for U.S. military intervention in any country deemed an obstacle in the United States strive for imperialistic power. In light of our current military power-very weak- it is unthinkable that we should enter into any more conflict throughout the world.
In addition to a fundamental flaw in agenda, Obama seems to have some character issues as well. This was shown in one of his arguments for attacking Iran and Pakistan making the comparison between the “Islamic world” and the Soviet Union. He said their religious views made them less prone to compromise and “warlike.” He also said: “With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.”
I certainly do not support any candidate that brings more arrogant comments into the United States office. We need to be boosting our relationship with other nations, not making ignorant comparisons and arrogant threats.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/
Response to Obama supporters
Although a few months ago I too would have given my full support to the democratic candidate Barack Obama, but in light of his recent statements concerning his agenda in Pakistan, his trigger-happy ideology is one I cannot support. By the recent approval ratings of President Bush, it is apparent that Americans are not looking for a leader that will bring us into more conflict. In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal. Obama’s statements exemplifies the “Bush Doctrine” in its willingness to provide rationale for U.S. military intervention in any country deemed an obstacle in the United States strive for imperialistic power. In light of our current military power-very weak- it is unthinkable that we should enter into any more conflict throughout the world.
In addition to a fundamental flaw in agenda, Obama seems to have some character issues as well. This was shown in one of his arguments for attacking Iran and Pakistan making the comparison between the “Islamic world” and the Soviet Union. He said their religious views made them less prone to compromise and “warlike.” He also said: “With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.”
I certainly do not support any candidate that brings more arrogant comments into the United States office. We need to be boosting our relationship with other nations, not making ignorant comparisons and arrogant threats.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/
oops... posted twice have fun reading double!
To: Victor Wang
During my first encounters with Ron Paul, I agreed with your views on him. However, as I look closer at his policy, I understand his 2% approval rating more. His stances seem quite liberal, which I agree with for the most part. I am not completely impressed by his Constitutional devotion. I think it is good for a politician to have a firm background, but they should be able to roll with the flow instead of being a strict Constructionist. I agree with you that his war stand is good. He wants to get out of Iraq, but let the Iraqis take over to the best of their abilities so we are not bogged down forever (1). He is not concerned about saving face. I see that you like his idea that we should stop policing the world. This I agree with, and Paul says that policing incites 9/11-esque attacks (2). However, Paul seems to be an isolationist, and this seems ridiculous to me. Paul has voted against basically every free trade agreement and wants to leave the WTO (1). This would be the defining reason I would not vote for him. We can’t survive in the modern world without trade and multi-lateral diplomacy. The world is structured so that scratching someone’s back will definitely obligate reciprocity. We need to work with other countries. Another thing I don’t like about Paul is that he has no definite plans for restructuring healthcare or social security. He wants to dump healthcare issues on the states and just doesn’t know what to do about social security (1). He only admits that SS is broken, and he believes government can fix it with lower spending, but surprisingly he is against government intervention in our lives (3). He can’t even ideologically support his own idea. Finally his lack of environmental policy is ludicrous. His own website just ignores the issue altogether (3).
I do admire Paul’s pro freedom of speech decisions. I like that he will not be policing Americans as much as this president (3). I do not know if this will have an overall negative effect of security, but at least it is an admirable, Constitution-friendly stance.
I do understand why you like Paul, Victor, and I do like him because of some of the issues you mentioned. However, I think a candidate is made or broken in the fine points of his platform, and Paul’s planks are rotten.
1)http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm#War_+_Peace
2)http://www.gambling911.com/Online-Gambling-Ron-Paul-052207.html
3)http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
To: Melissa Nemcek
From: Michelle Ludwig
While Mike Huckabee may not be my favorite person as a future president, I chose to comment on yours, because I feel that you were very general in why you chose him. Yes he may have a pleasing personality, but when I think of how I choose a presidential candidate, my mind is immediately drawn to the issues and their stances on them, which I do not feel were, addressed enough in your post.
When looking at Huckabee’s stances, I find that he is probably one of the candidates that I have the least in common with. He is a supporter of overturning Roe vs. Wade, which I am a strong supporter of, but on most other things, I find him to be a little too extreme. In the first place, I strongly disagree with his view on gay marriage, because I believe that marriage has never been specifically designed as between a man and a woman. Also, they can’t simply say that it says so in the bible, because the laws in our society should not be affected by what is said in the bible, because of the first amendment. I am also strongly against his views on Israel. I see absolutely no reason why we should be supplying them with weapons that will only cause problems in the first place, and I firmly believe that these weapons of mass destruction have absolutely no use, and that they should be destroyed. I am also a firm believe in stronger gun control, because I don’t really enjoy the idea of being able to walk around knowing that anyone in the same room as you could pull out a gun at any time. Personally I feel that there really is no need for the conceal and carry law and I feel that allowing this sort of thing will only cause more problems with the weapons. Finally, I’m not a big fan of Huckabee’s plan with the war in Iraq. A part of me agrees that we shouldn’t withdraw because I agree that we need to stay in Iraq until we have cleaned up the mess that we have caused. However, I feel that if we don’t create a plan begin removing the troops from Iraq, then I fear that we will be stuck in Iraq for an extremely long time. Therefore, I don’t’ fully support immediate troop withdrawal, but I do feel that some sort of time table should be created to bring them home.
I am not sure who I would support for president as of right now, but I agree with Lauren Vann that Rudy Giuliani would make a good candidate for the Republican Party. I like his fiscal discipline; the government often wastes a lot of money on programs that are poorly organized. When he was Mayor of New York City, he decreased the size of the city’s bureaucracies by almost 20%.
I appreciate Giuliani’s position on abortion, but for different reasons. I am pro-life, but I understand the use of abortion to save the mother (which he supports). Giuliani has what he calls “reasonable restrictions” on abortion that I agree with, including banning partial birth abortion.
However, I disagree with Giuliani’s stance on the war in Iraq. He thinks we should stay in indefinitely until we meet our objectives. I believe that we need to set some sort of deadline of one to two years for withdrawal. I feel that making a plan, so long as we stick to it, will help us avoid looking like a weak nation as we pull out. We should finish what we started, but without a schedule our actions will drag on indefinitely and loose their effectiveness.
Setting a deadline for pulling out of Iraq would improve morale among our soldiers, motivating us to succeed. It would bring about a sense of urgency for us and our Iraqi allies, pushing the Iraqis to become more able to defend themselves once we pull out.
If we set a deadline for Iraq, we could win quickly. There is a small risk that we wouldn’t accomplish all of our objectives, but we would still finish most of the agenda. Leaving quickly would also save a great deal of money that could be used to improve domestic programs.
Giuliani says that “setting an artificial time-table…would embolden our enemies,” as if the enemies will hide out until our specified withdrawal date and bomb vulnerable Iraq the instant we pull out. However, there is always a risk that enemies will strike after we withdraw from Iraq, whether it is two years or twenty years from now.
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/
In response to Shannon’s comments on Sam Brownback, I thoroughly agree. It is my shared belief that this candidate has his priorities skewed. As Shannon mentioned, Sam Brownback sites border control as his top priority. He supports funding “700 miles of border fencing and 350 miles of vehicle barriers along the Southern border and 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the nation's southwest border.” At the same time, Brownback has pledged to oppose all tax increases, and plans to continue work towards decreasing tax burdens for Americans.
With regards to the Iraq war, arguably one of the most pressing issues of the upcoming election, Brownback summarizes his commentary in mere four sentences. With no specific plan of action, other than citing that one ought to be created, this candidate suggests that the hope of the people rebuild Iraq. He states, “I think we need a plan to turn this country over to its citizens.” With all due respect, Mr. Brownback, duh.
“At the heart of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment.” Sam Brownback discourages restrictive gun laws, but rather, encourages family gun safety and instruction. Coincidentally, this candidate introduced the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, about which he noted, “Shielding our children from the violence, obscenity, and indecency in today’s media continues to be one of my top priorities.” Where guns remain close at ‘heart’, children are right alongside.
Overall, I agree with Shannon’s assessment that this candidate has unrealistic and unpractical solutions in regards to the issue of immigration. I further agree that his focus on the Iraq war is all together much too miniscule and vague. Sam Brownback contradicts many of his own statements with other actions and promises and is therefore unreliable and unfit for the presidency.
oops! source:
http://www.brownback.com/s/Issues/tabid/60/Default.aspx
To: Alyssa Vongries / Giuliani Supporters
Rudy Giuliani is not the ideal presidential candidate. His disrespectful behavior, unclear positions on issues, strategy on Iraq, and failure in 9/11 reveal that Giuliani is unprepared to assume presidential power.
Giuliani does not respect his constituents or engagements. The infamous cell phone call during his NRA speech exposes Giuliani’s lack of professionalism. Giuliani answered a telephone call from his wife during the speech. In a later interview with CBN, he claimed, “I’d done that before in engagements.” (2) Giuliani admitted to consistently interrupting important commitments. A quality president understands the importance and values the time of his engagements.
The above mentioned candidate supports finishing the war in Iraq in an effort to end terrorism (3). By remaining in Iraq, Giuliani completely opposes and misrepresents the public opinion of the United States. The president should provide a solution in Iraq to satisfy the seventy percent of adults who disapprove of the current Iraq situation (6).
A proficient presidential leader has a refined, concise, and constant view of issues in American society, and Rudy Giuliani lacks clarity in his issue stances. Despite being officially Republican, Giuliani exhibits liberal views similar to Democrats. Gay rights and abortion emphasize the candidate’s inconsistency with his party (3). Inconsistency in the issues results in inconsistent policy. Mayor Riordan of California relayed that Giuliani is “too liberal...for the...Republicans.” (1)
The presidential campaign for Giuliani distorted his leadership abilities during the 9/11 crisis. MSNBC revealed Giuliani’s unskilled and irrational decisions in midst of the terrorist attack such as reducing firefighters at ground zero. The International Association of Firefighters expressed their disappointment in Giuliani by deliberately refusing the candidate an invitation to their forum (4). Similarly, the Uniformed Fire Officers Association felt that, “he [Giuliani] disrespected us in the most horrific way,” (1) and the NYC Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association denounced the influence of Giuliani in lowering the crime rate (5). The depiction of a capable leader in crisis is an inaccurate description of Rudy Giuliani.
Rudy Giuliani is ill-equipped to handle the role of national presidency. He has yet to develop leadership qualities that will best serve the American public. Rudy Giuliani should not be elected for party nomination or the presidency in the 2008 election.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/politics/01giuliani.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
2. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/240295.aspx
3. http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17869046/
5. http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/12443-nypd-rudy-giuliani-doesn-t-deserve-to-be-president?play=1
6. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Reply to Melissa Nemcek
I disagree with the idea that Mike Huckabee would be the most capable candidate for president. He has not made a clear plan on how to achieve energy independence. He does not have the experience to be considered a great leader, and his personality is not what I would consider to appealing.
Although you say he has a plan for energy independence, he has no plan laid out for what actions we will have to take. Mike Huckabee addresses that energy independence is important for many reasons, but is vague in how he will solve them. His website says;
“The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term…
We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.”(1)
He only speaks generally about how he wants to help solve the energy dependency, and that cannot be considered a cohesive credible plan.
I would also like to argue that he does not have enough worldly background to be a great leader.
Based on being a two term governor from Arkansas, I don’t believe he has enough experience to be president of a widely diverse country. He also does not have enough international training to be a leader of a world power. In recent news, he has mentioned his trip to the Middle East, but I would not say that makes him automatically qualified to be president (2).
Lastly, I would like to say is that if the voter were to choose Huckabee, I do not believe it will be for his personality. A recent republican Gallup poll show Huckabee at 3% to 4% among republican supporters in upcoming presidential election (3). Judging by recent voter opinions, for example a democratic shift in congressional elections, I do not believe that Huckabee would appeal to today’s voter. The country is ready to move away from extreme conservative ideas. He will not have wide appeal to the general population.
For the past eight years, the country has had a president that was personable, yet lacked experience. To solve the serious problems we face, we need a president that has broad knowledge, leadership skills, and a plan to get the country back on track.
(1)http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=21
(2)http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usforeignpolicy&cdn=newsissues&tm=18&f=11&tt=11&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/02/02/News/333735.html
(3)http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
To Anne McNeill
I'm wondering on what specific issues does Edwards distinguishes himself as your candidate of choice? You weren't very clear on that in your post.
Edwards' big issue is helping out the underdog and putting an end to poverty, but a comparison of Edwards' and Obama's webpages on that particular topic reveals a striking number of similarities regarding the approach that each would take against it (Clinton doesn't give the topic a prominent place on her website, indicating that it's more of a secondary issue for her). While Obama doesn't set out to accomplish a lofty goal of completely eliminating poverty within the framework of a timeline, a lot of his proposals mirror the ones found on Edwards' site. For example, both of them support expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, further raising the minimum wage, increasing investment in rural America and impoverished urban areas, strengthening the power of unions; the list goes on. Are their differences in these programs? Yes, but the similarities far outnumber the differences, and minor policy differences to accomplish the same objective will not make much of difference when it comes time to pass these policies through Congress.
I'm not certain if his war against poverty is the reason why you chose him, but I'd say that, as far as policy goes, the differences between the three front-running Democratic candidates are mostly minor. Personality, history, experience, and perceived electability are the factors influencing primary voters the most at the moment.
http://www.barackobama.com/
http://johnedwards.com/issues/
I agree with you that Kucinich is mind boggling. However, my mind is boggled in a positive way. I agree with most of Kucinich’s views especially on nuclear disarmament. When candidates I used to support such as Obama start talking about pre-emptive attacks on Pakistan, Kucinich seems like the best candidate.
Now, off your first point, I believe that universal healthcare is awesome! I find it ridiculous that the United States is the only industrialized nation left that does not provide healthcare for its citizens (2). First of all, I don’t think getting to choose your doctor should outweigh the problem of millions of Americans not even having a doctor in the first place due to their financial situation. Secondly, universal healthcare does not mean that you do not get to choose your doctor. I have relatives in Canada and they get to choose their doctors and also, the waiting period there is the same, if not better than here. Off your increased taxes argument, I would like to point out that the federal government has been increasingly funding its military programs since 9/11 and it has now exceeded the Cold War rate (1). Another very interesting information is that we now spend $442 billion dollars on the military (over half the national budget) and it exceeds the total military spending of all the other countries in the world combined which is $287 billion (1)! We can always cut back on military spending and put it into more useful programs that improve the overall health of the nation such as education and healthcare.
Off your second point, immediate withdrawal is the only solution left for Iraq. American troops being there only perpetuate the violence and it is clear that Iraqis of all factions do not want us there (3). They see us as invaders, not liberators. You claim that leaving Iraq makes us look weak. However, remember that we have the biggest military program in the world. Also, when you say Iraqis are not open to compromise, I think this sentence is too narrow-minded. We have to realize that there are a few radical extremists in Iraq but a majority of them are citizens whose standard of living have been negatively impacted by “liberation.” This is what we need to realize if we ever want to find a solution to Iraq.
With that, I end this post.
1.http://www.sensibleiowans.org/budget_analysis.php
2.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/kucinich_05-29.html
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101268.html
To tonyb
First and foremost, please allow me to compliment you on your excellent blog post tonyb. Your post was truly tremendous, an eye opener if you will, that exposed me to another candidate of which you convinced me was capable and worthy to be a presidential candidate. I was impressed with the fact that Ron Paul was a constitutionalist and the fact that he has remained firm with his viewpoints, even with the war in Iraq. This value seems to be seldom seen and often overrated, and I do agree that with Ron Paul you do know what you’re getting with him. Another thing is that of foreign policy, I agree with your candidate as we should focus more on ourselves rather than “entangling ourselves” with the issues of other nations. Lastly, I would like to agree with you once again in the point that it would be nice to have a liberal republican or a moderate in the White House and that regardless of Ron Paul’s associated political group, he remains to be a candidate that you can trust.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.ontheissues.org/
http://www.ronpaulfacts.com/
Caitlin,
I agree with you, I think that Dennis Kucinich has ideas that can almost guarantee a bright future for the American people and government. I think that the US would be a better place with some of his ideas (such as pulling out of Iraq), but I can also see some faults in someof his plans.
My question to you is, do you think that he can actually get elected as a democrat? As an independent? I agree that, in a dream world, Dennis Kucinich would get elected. But in the society that we have today, he would be torn apart by conservatives as a madman and by liberals as someone with too extreme ideas.
Dennis Kucinich also wants to abolish all nuclear weapons in an attempt to make the world a safer place. Yes, these weapons have negative effects,but if we abolish them, what will happen if another country (possibly Iran or North Korea) attacks us? We'll be a lame duck, and will have no defense of equal threat. And Kucinich also says that he doesn't want the US to "police the world anymore." Does this meant that the US does not get involved in genocide intervention? Or saving a population from an oppressive government? I'm not advocating an empire here, but I can see the sense in the US providing aid and things like that. Kucinich also advocates universal health care. This would help more people and reach a wider audience, but questions are raised as to the quality of the care provided. An increase in quantity cannot necessarily ensure an increase in quality.
I think Dennis Kucinich is a brilliant man and could do wonders for America. However, I think that he can't appeal to the majority of America, and won't get elected, which is unfortunate.
To:AlyssaG
I agree with your argument that Barack Obama's experience is enough to be an excellent president. Some may say that his political experiences are too little, but even in the presidency, a little new blood here and there never hurt anything.
To expand on your comment about JFK, presidential facts from http://www.geocities.com/presfacts/general.html show that JFK's previous experience was as a Senator, like Barack Obama, as well as a "congressman." Going one step further, his vice-president and successor, Lyndon Johnson, had experience only as a "public official."
Someone with not as much experience in politics may even be a better candidate to have in recent times, as they may not have been fully exposed and affected by the corruption and fighting across age-old party lines in the government.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
kucinich4president.com
http://www.mikehuckabee.com
These are sources for Katie Wutchiett and Michelle Ludwig
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
kucinich4president.com
http://www.mikehuckabee.com
These are sources for Katie Wutchiett and Michelle Ludwig
In Response to Lauren- While I (mostly) agree with Giuliani’s stances on abortion and gay partnerships, I just don’t think he would make the best candidate for president. He cut NY crime rates in half, increased school funding, etc., which is good, but Rudy believes that winning the war on terrorism is the great responsibility of our generation. This I do not agree with. I don’t think that our generation has any one responsibility, and if we did have a responsibility, I think it would be a peaceful one. While it’s true that being the mayor of NYC is like running a small country, it doesn’t make up for the fact that he’s not in Congress. I think a transition from mayor to president would be a difficult one, and that there is still a huge difference.
www.joinrudy2008.com
I really liked Heather's comment not really have full faith in any of the candidates. It's hard to decide who you want to support when none of the people you have to choose from really excite you. For me it's pretty much choosing the lesser of two evils. I think this is why so many people don't participate in the elections. Why vote for a candidate that you don't support just because it's the person you dislike the least. The only way to be one hundred percent pleased with a candidate is if that candidate is yourself.
Thanks to whoever tallied up our classes votes! Intresting to see who we would choose. I like Obama but I also wonder if he's got a bit of celebrity factor going on now because of Oprah.
Sorry but i swear that Oprah is vicariously running for president through Obama. =)
Now my response is to Miss. Jazmyn Becker. I am incline to do a lot more than just respond to what you had to say about senator Barack Obama, but I am going to keep it respectful and clean. Miss Jazmyn, I agree with you that Obama has not had a lot of experience in congress but I disagree with you saying it is not his time yet. His inexperience just means he has not had the opportunity to show his leadership qualities. His inexperience does not mean he is not a good leader. Matter of fact Obama might be exactly what this country needs to restore its tarnished name. I think Miss Jazmyn you need more concrete issues to base your arguments on and not how long he has been a politician. It should be based on his stances on different issues. For instance, Silas provided a good example of why Obama is not his choice for president and I feel that is what you should have provided us. His inexperience should not equal his inability to lead this country. Also the fact that you are an African American does not mean you should automatically support Barack Obama. It just means you have an idea of who the next president should be and it is not him , but miss next time please give us more reason than what you provided.
P.S, see me and I will do what I am inclined to do to you.........
My original response to the candidate that I most support was Barack Obama. Well I think I may have spoken too soon. Although I really support some of Obama's issues, Rudy Giuliani has become more and more interesting to me. I guess I was initially turned off by Rudy because of his well known personal life, and when looking at his stance on issues I wasn't quite convinced. The more I thought about it however I think I am going to agree with Michelle H. and support Rudy.
Because I am a moderate I had a hard time deciding between Obama and Giuliani at first. I think that Barack Obama definitely beats Giuliani on his energy plans, but I think at the core issues I may have been better aligned with Rudy than I thought. Although I support a change in Iraq, I was not convinced that withdrawing the troops will be the best offer. I like that Giuliani not only presents his view on the Iraq War, but also describes how he will fight future terrorism.
I also like that Giuliani has proven himself. As the mayor of New York he dealt with many issues, including a school district with over a million kids in it. Although he is pro-choice, while he was mayor adoptions went up 66% and abortions decreased 16%. This makes me very excited because, I really am morally opposed to abortions, but I understand that in certain instances it is viable. I also like that he doesn't support gay marriage but is for civil unions and recognizing gay couples under the law.
When I step back and look at it, I think my initial response was to Obama because of his elaborate plans, but morally when it comes down to it I really am more compatible with Rudy Giuliani. This just proves to me that a little extra research goes a long way!
http://www.joinrudy2008.com
So, this decided not to work last night…so I’m trying again.
To: Giuliani supporters
Being a moderate, it has been difficult for me to make a decision on which candidate I would like to be the next president. While at this point I would be more inclined to vote for John Edwards, I do not strongly oppose the views of Rudy Giuliani. I agree with Giuliani on a good number of issues, but I think that there would be some problems if he were to become president.
First of all, I think that some voters would have trouble getting past his somewhat unconventional personal life. Many have commented on his divorces and the fact that he was married to his cousin, among other things. While this would not affect my vote for him (if I were to vote for him) I think that voters who are not well informed on the issues or voters who vote on personality alone would not give their vote to Giuliani.
Another reason why I don’t believe Giuliani would make the best president is his lack of experience. Yes, he was the mayor of New York City which is much like a small country itself, but he has not been part of Congress, the Senate or any other office that I believe would be necessary to be a strong national leader. Many comment on Obama’s lack of experience, but I would agree more with critics of Giuliani’s lack of experience.
I agree with Giuliani’s positions on issues such as public safety, education and abortion. While I agree with his stances on these issues, I do not agree on his position of Iraq. First off he doesn’t seem to have any sort of specific plan for Iraq, just ideas of what he believes should happen. He wants to play more of an offensive role and believes America can win. This is his position, but he doesn’t have any plan or timetable for becoming more offensive or any known ideas of how he would go about it. I think Iraq will have a big impact on the voters, and his seemingly loose position and ideals in regard to Iraq will later show in the election. Though, since it is still early he could come up with a detailed plan of how to do this and win the republican nomination.
Giuliani matches up with some of my opinions on the issues, but I am not yet convinced that he would make the best president. Still, he is the top republican candidate at this point, which shows a lot about his support this early in the election. I think he could do quite well in the long run.
Sources:
www.joinrudy2008.com
www.cnn.com
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
To Liana:
I agree that Edwards would not be a bad choice for President. However, most of his policies don’t seem to differ much from those of the other Democratic front runners. Neither Clinton nor Obama support an immediate troop withdrawal. (In my opinion, that’s probably best; as much as most people wish we could simply end this war in one shot and pretend it never happened, it is not feasible.) None of them want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, or to have Roe v. Wade overturned. Though the three of them vary in foreign policy (and Obama, though he originally voted against the war, doesn’t have the most practical plan for how to engage the U.S. military in the future), the differences in their positions on the issues are more superficial than substantial.
Much of the support for Edwards seems to be his populist attitude. His major appeal is his stance against poverty and the way he speaks to people as though he can really sympathize with their problems. Another strategy he has is to take sides against the Washington political system, since many people are skeptical of the motives of politicians these days. This works for him because he spent more time as a lawyer than as a politician, and because he does not currently work in Washington (though he was, until recently, a senator in North Carolina).
Though his skill at concocting his grassroots image undoubtedly sets him apart from Obama, who has something of a celebrity image, and Clinton, who many people complain comes off as cold, Edwards is not fundamentally much different from them.
www.johnedwards.com
www.ontheissues.org
Time, Sept
this is a response to katie Wutchett. i agree with you on supports Edwards i like his plan for Iraq as well his stance on other issues such as i support his views on abortion as well as education he wants to make colleges and publice univerisities free (the top reason why ppl don't attend college is because the expense)and i like his idea of creating a "second Chance" school to get dropouts back on track.
www.onthissues.org
This is a response to Hilary Clinton supporters and to Katie Plasynski's response post. I agree with her, in saying that Hilary Clinton is not my presidential nomination. I believe too that she has flip flopped over issues too many times. She has changed her view of the war several times, and has never given a full honest stance of the war. She remains inconsistent with her plans of the War in Iraq, and has not been clear on her beliefs or decisions. I feel that her foreign policies are vague and do not uphold an assured plan for the future. I do not feel safe electing someone who is hypocritical with their beliefs and continues to "flip flop" over issues.
This is a response to Alyssa G-
Though Obama seems to have “lists” of volunteering and public service, it is not quite extensive enough to fill the Oval office. You compared Obama to that of JFK and his many accomplishments in the presidency(even though he had little experience). Truthfully, when looking at Kennedy's track record he did make some big mistakes (from foreign policy to adultery). He had the looks , the personality and more but when looking at what he DID it accounts for little. This is in part to his quick passing, but also because he lacked the political experience to make decisions. the Bay of Pigs incident was the first case that Kennedy dealt with poorly. Kennedy allowed the US to invade Cuba in disguise. The US attacked and was shot down by the Cubans (who had both their air force and 20,000 troops). the failure of the Bay of Pigs was followed by yet another problem- The Cuban Missile Crisis. Soviet General Anatoly Gribkov said , “Nuclear catastrophe was hanging by a thread... and we weren’t counting days or hours, but minutes” This quote reflects that the United States was the closet it’s ever been to nuclear war while JFK was in office. Though Kennedy was able to avoid the war, the fact is we were closer than ever at the time. Kennedy lacked the focus for foreign policy issues (The Heroism Project).
I also disagree with Obama’s stance on the war. Though the war in itself was a bad idea from the start, I believe that we must first stabilize the destruction we have created. If the troops begin immediate withdrawal, the Iraq government will be worse off than it is now. We must first set a foundation from which they can build, and then begin removing troops from Iraq. Obama’s lack of experience and stance on Iraq creates a package deal that I don not agree with.
www.jfklibrary.com
http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/index.html
http://www.heroism.org/class/1960/PoliticalUpheaval.htm
In response to Tony's post:
People keep referring to Ron Paul as a moderate, which I take issue with. It is true that he doesn't agree with all of the positions of either the Republican party or the Democratic party. However, this does not make him a moderate. He identifies mostly with libertarian positions, which would put him farther to the right than most other candidates.
http://www.house.gov/paul/
I do not believe any candidate that advocates things like the abolishment of the IRS can be considered a moderate. People say that he is honest about his views, which may be true, but those views simply do not match up with what most of the country wants. He is even more conservative than Republicans in most of his policies. He wants to be completely isolationist, which has not served us well in the past (see the time period following World War I as an example). He calls things like the International Criminal Court a "threat to our nation," and says that "the right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty." These would seem to demonstrate that he is farther to the right than most people believe.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
Character should be a consideration when choosing a candidate, but it cannot be the only consideration. People also need to look at the issues that a candidate supports.
This is from Macall:
In response to Judy I must disagree with her opinion of Mike Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee is not the person I want to win the presidency, but if he did I would not be upset. I believe Huckabee stands strong for what he believes and knows precisely what actions he must take to accomplish tasks.
Based on his foreign policy issues, I find that I completely agree to what he has to say. First, I agree to stay in Iraq. Continuing this battle that we began and to continue fighting terrorism, we must stay in Iraq (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=2). Now you commented on saying something like he has no idea what a win in Iraq would look like. But how do we know what Iraq is going to be whether we win, pull out now, or gradually pull out 5 years from now. Truth is there is no way to indicate that in any situation. Second, I think sticking with our support for Israel is the best idea (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=3). We have done so for decades now and have already made the Palestinians quite angry. By leaving the Israelis I can be certain the death toll will shoot up and the US just sits there looking like betrayers and cowards. And thirdly, in order for the US to fight/solve terrorism we must build our military and defense budget. How else do you approach the problem? I mean do you really think jihadists are willing to compromise? Of course not, they want us dead. We have to use means of power to get what we want in this chaotic world.
Based on Mr. Huckabee’s domestic policies, I think universal healthcare seems like a bad idea at least at this point. We need to stabilize ourselves based on national security before we blow a bunch of money on domestic policies. I guess I am hesitant on universal healthcare because I think it will only use a lot of money, allow those who are too lazy to work to receive free healthcare, and increase the number of illegal immigrants (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=8). As for on the illegal immigration policy, I agree with Huckabee that any illegal person living inside our borders should be deported. Those who obey law and apply and wait deserve to be here (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4). I too agree that saying the school prayer should be allowed. I think it would not violate the first amendment as long as kids are not forced to say it, because I know there are millions of kids of different opinions on religion. But school prayer defines and unifies us as a country. Overall, his main goal is to be self-sufficient through means of production and energy (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=21). If we can attain that goal, we can focus on domestic issues and be certain that we are a world super power who can protect themselves.
1. http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm
This is from Macall NOT Ms. Aby. I am helping her out.
btw, my response was to lauren vann's response to kendra.
sorry, forgot to mention that earlier.
This is to anybody who chose to oppose a candidate rather than support one:
I know with about 20 candidates still it is hard to pick your favorite candidate. Still though, if you are picking your least favorite candidates before you pick your favorites I feel this is a pessimistic approach to the election. I think this is one of the reasons why the approval ratings for the president are in general not really ever going to be high again. All the candidates are starting in a hole. In the 2004 election the majority of campaign commercials were saying why you should NOT vote for the other guy. I’m tired of seeing Bush’s face when I watch a commercial for John Kerry, and I’m tired of hearing about John Kerry flip-flopping when I see a commercial for Bush. Yet (in my opinion) Bush ran a dirtier campaign than Kerry, and he ended up winning the election, so something in his campaign obviously worked. If we are electing the “lesser of two evils” for every presidential election, then the president will start in a hole with the public. This is obviously not good for America’s morale, and obviously not good for the president. Besides, if you are picking whichever candidate you hate the most, what happens if he wins? You won’t allow yourself to see the good he does in the White House, and then his ratings will be continuously low throughout his term. I think it is best to just pick a candidate, and not to knock any other candidate.
Source- Chapter 7 of the book
Post a Comment