Because I'm a masochist, I've been trying my hand at writing political articles lately. Despite my years of closely following national politics, it's harder than it looks to say something even remotely interesting or constructive. Also difficult is to reconcile my desire to be fair and non-partisian with the fact that I can't stand each of the front runners of one party in particular, you know, the one that virtually every one of my friends militantly supports. The issue I care most about, guns, seems to resonate poorly among most I know, issues such as the Iraq War, taxes, and health care seeming much more important. And I've never figured out whether to call myself a "libertarian conservative" or a "conservative libertarian." I lean towards the latter.
Anyways, I'm very interested in knowing what friends, acquaintances, and readers thinks of this lot of candidates, Democrat and Republican. If you could select the nominee from each party, and not in the cheating sense that you'll support the candidate you consider the least electable, who would it be? Allow me to give it a try:
Republican: Ron Paul - I've liked him since I was in high school. I don't care for his foreign policy viewpoints, but at least he has been consistent with them, unlike his competition.
Democrat: Bill Richardson - If I'm going to support a Democrat, it will be the only one with a concealed handgun permit. But he also seems to be a very popular and well liked governor, which implies more to me than saying the same about a senator.
I'd like to hear from people about this one. Who appeals to you, and why?
12 comments:
Honestly, none of the candidates from either major party really excite me all that much. Call me a cynic, but I'm of the frame of mind that the kind of power-grubbing opportunist who would mount a Presidential run isn't the kind of person I'd want running this country. Especially if her name is Hilary. I consider myself a liberal, but I really don't like her. She strikes me as little more than a giant ball of ambition coasting on the Clinton name and residual sympathy from her husband's infidelities.
That said, I see what you're saying about governors. I think the public agrees, by and large. When they look at a Senator, they see corruption, shady dealings with lobbyists, and inside-the-beltway back-slapping. In addition, their voting history is a matter of the public record, easily scrutinized and twisted by their opponents. While you've got the public record issue with governors as well, they have the advantage in the public's eyes of being in charge of something, which I think means a lot to people.
Come to think of it, I don't find any of them really exciting, either. Some of them are fine, but there aren't any that I'd follow to Hell and back. As for Hillary, wow, just the fact that she could even be considred to win demonstrates some serious cracks in our political system.
One thing about governors that helps them is that they don't have as extensive of a voting record as Senators do. They do have to take issue positions, but they can be more flexible, whereas a Senator must vote for or against something, meaning that their one pro-abortion vote can come back to bite them, or whatever people get into a fuss over.
It looks like we'll have a Senator next time. I can't imagine that the Democrats will lose, and all three of their front-runners are Senators. Although the new Republican lead is from Arkansas, a state which I thought we'd all had enough of!
Paul - Forgot to mention that your quote contest seriously began to kick my ass a few weeks ago. I could discover the source of most of them via Google, but didn't want to submit that way cause it would be cheating.
I've considered holding a contest or two with actual prizes as the bribery for entry. One idea I've always liked is that I would challenge my readers to come up with a good syllabus for a film class.
I just got done listening to the democratic debate on NPR that was held in Des Moines. I'm quite sure I sound naive in saying this, but I was of surprised at how intelligent and provocative the responses from Hillary, Obama, and John Edwards were to some of the tougher queries on Iran and China foreign policy issues. As for Obama, I think it's really hard to sound that smart and not actually be that smart. Though I'm sure you would call it demagoguery, I'm still not convinced that he is merely a big phony.
Bill Richardson couldn't attend the debate because he was "attending the funeral of a Korean war soldier who's remains he had helped repatriate from North Korea". With this action alone, I can see why you like the guy. It's unfortunate I couldn't hear about his take on the issues. Based on what I know now, I'll narrow down my choices to Clinton and Edwards.
I don't know enough about the Republican candidates. I am reluctant to listen to a full debate because firstly, you made the point that nearly all of the debates so far have been held by some liberal news corporation and so you don't get conversation so much as just argument with the host so I haven't watched those yet. But if a conservative news corporation i.e. Fox held a debate (I guess they already have) for the Republican candidates, I'm afraid all I would hear is "we need to run America more like Jesus would run America" or "Terrorists hates us Americans for being so great therefore it's essential we continue the war against Islam, er, I mean Terrorists... and also Islam." Right now, the only candidate I know enough about is Juliani and Ron Paul, and I consider Juliani a filthy human being. So based on what I know now, Ron Paul for Republicans (though unlikely).
Yeah, that would be sort of uncool to cheat on Famous Last Words, especially when it's only $20 at stake.
Rest assured that you're not the only one who's been having more trouble with the game in recent weeks. But there is at least one perfect scorer out there, so obv. I haven't made it hard enough yet...
James, you're going to hate this, but at the risk of sounding like a bandwagon jumper, I have to say that I'm quite struck by the forthright manner of Barack Obama (I expect that Susan likes him as well). It seems like his entire goal is to gain the appearance of a Washington outsider who could offer a fresh view to what seems in the last few years to have become a stagnant office.
I like his stated approach to foreign policy. He's said he's open to talks with pretty much anyone who isn't actively biting the heads off babies. His policy includes better support in Mexico which I agree with. While I know that it is James' opinion that Mexico is broken beyond repair, there is no way to fix immigration until Mexicans no longer line up at the border for the chance of a better life in America.
As a person who is heavily involved in issues that affect the midwest I am happy that he distrusts the factory farm industry and understands how it is hurting/killing family farmers. He wants to amend NAFTA to add a labor agreement, which I think might be a step toward helping to fix imigration issues.
I seem to be focusing alot on immigration, so let me address that for a moment. There isn't any particular candidate who lines up with my views. Most of them talk about "fixing" the problem when what they really mean is "less mexicans." The simple fact is that there is a labor problem in America. When you look at the American landscape historically we have always brought in immigrants to do the manual jobs. First it was Africans and the Irish in the 20th century it was the Italians and the Poles. The way I see it, the reason jobs are being sent overseas is that there isn't anyone here to do them. What we need is a stream-lined immigration system that would discourage border jumpers. Mexican families pay thousands of dollars to be smuggled into the U.S. why shouldn't that money end up in the hands of U.S. Customs and Immigration instead of some low-life with an old U-haul truck.
Moving back to my Democratic pick, I don't like his stance on guns, but I don't think he can do any real harm to the second amendment. Others before him have tried and failed. BTW-don't let anyone get away with trying to claim that the Nebraska Shooter makes a case for gun control. That SOB stole the gun he used, so the strictest gun registration wouldn't have stopped him.
On homeland security there is a bit of waffling, but nothing I'm not OK with. He supports registering woment for the draft, but not for combat. While I would agree that some women would do alright in combat females of our species are neither hardwired nor socially prepared for killing other humans. He also supports the best training and equipment available for all soldiers. He supports the continuation of the PATRIOT act which I find troubling but also consider to be a necesarry evil for the sake of national security. He does not support extending the wire-tap privileges laid by the PATRIOT act, which I find reassuring.
Since it logically follows, his views on the Iraq war are in line with mine. While the troop surge has made a difference, calling it a success is an overstatement. Adding more and more troops on the ground just ignores the overwhelming political problems faced by an ethnically/religiously divided country. There aren't any good options for Iraq, only bad and worse ones. The fastest a withdrawal could possibly happen is one to two brigades at a time. Cutting funds is not the answer, while the troops are still there they need supplies. The earliest a troop withdrawal could be completed is 2013, though he makes no promise on this.
I think Obama's refusal to make promises is what I like most about him. I learned a long time ago ("read my lips, no new taxes") that politicians break more promises than they keep (often out of necesitty), so when one comes along and says that he's not going to lie and make promises he can't keep I find it refreshing.
As a side note to the Iraq policy, his foreign policy includes a diplomatic approach to Iran rather than continuing military resolutions.
He also supports a woman's right to choose, and stem cell research within acceptable guidelines for my moral compass.
Now for a Republican...
You know, I sat here and thought about this and was starting to write a bit about Ron Paul, when I stopped and realized that while I could live with most of his policies I don't really like most of them.
I don't really think I could pick a republican. It's not that I hate the GOP, I just think their reasons for the decisions they make are wrong and hence tend to disagree with pretty much everything they stand for. There are a few exceptions.
I guess I agree with RP's national security stance, and his general position on war, although I wish I knew more about his plans for Iraq.
He supports allowing young people to get the fuck out of broken social security programs which will take their money now and not have any for them in the future.
I guess you could say that Ron Paul is fairly progressive for a conservative, and he might be the best of the right.
Ok, that was really long.
Ryan, you've given me a lot to reply to!
I'll try to do it in points so I can maintain focus and clarity.
The dichotomy between our views on Obama is enormous.
- Susan doesn't like him. She'd probably vote for Edwards if she could choose between the three, I think. But I've assured her that from now on, I'll fill out her absentee ballot for her, so she won't have to worry about it and I won't have to be sleeping with a Hillary Clinton supporter.
- I understand that if Mexico were in better shape then we would very likely have fewer immigrants, but we can do things to help solve (or drastically reduce the problem). For one, better border security, harsh penalites against crooked employers, and making police actually enforce the law would all help. I know that we can always use cheap labor, but I don't see the benefit in having the crime rate skyrocket and bankrupting whole governments just so the Democrats can get more votes and the Republicans can kiss the ass of businessmen.
- I know this is blasphemy in Iowa, but I'm not sold on the idea of the government giving small families millions in farm subsidies just so they won't go out of business. It is not the job of the government to bail people out of their financial troubles. You can't have a truly free society exist alongside a welfare state.
- I don't think that gun control is high on Obama's list of priorities, but I also get the sense that he doesn't think that anyone should have a gun, ever, and that I find alarming.
- About the Omaha shooting: it is tempting during occasions like these to have a kneejerk sentimental reaction, but ultimately feelings like those fade. There is still a Second Amendment, the vast majority of gun owners use their firearms responsbily, and guns are used for recreation and defense millions of times a year.
However, mass shooting by evil teenagers still bother me quite a bit. I'm wondering if we should have a law that states that if you are a gun owner who negligently allows someone like that to access your gun and go on a kill spree with it, then you can be held liable for it in civil and possibly criminal ways. But that would be a very tricky and slippery law to pass and enforce.
A lot of the pro-gun people go "Ha! That mall was a "Gun Free" zone and look what happened! Just like Virginia Tech!" Some truth lies within this argument, but I find the implications to be rather spurious. It assumes two things:
1. That if the mall or school or wherever weren't "Gun Free," someone with a CC license would have been there to stop the shooting before it got worse. That is POSSIBLE, but still somewhat unlikely.
2. The implication ends up being that if tons of people carried concealed guns on them, then we'd be safer from mass shootings. While I feel inclined to agree, I have to say that no one should have to live or operate in an area where you have to carry a gun in order to feel comfortable. While someone like me would be fine carrying one everywhere, most people, even gun people, would much rather not.
But there is one thing they have right: a "Gun Free" zone certainly doesn't threaten mass shooters very much.
- I do find the idea of women in the military somewhat silly. And note that I said "military," not "combat." I think an all-male force is much better, but I doubt we're gonna be turning back the clock on that one, so whatever.
- I don't want the U.S. to attack Iran either, I really, really don't, but never say never. Whenever the devil takes hold of Susan and she starts talking about Iran in a way that sounds startingly similar to that fucking douchebag president of theirs, I tell her that as long as Iran has people like that in charge, there are those everywhere who will consider them ants who deserve whatever crushing they get. Not I, mind you. I've now had a best friend and a girlfriend with parents from there, so I'm about as connected to Iran as any white kid from Mississippi will ever be.
- Interesting story about Obama and abortion. A few months ago, Obama spoke out against some Supreme Court ruling that was against partial-birth abortion, a truly ghastly practice that even many pro-choicers oppose. One night, I was at Jokers for a birthday party and got to talking to this one girl I know, a self-proclaimed "conservative Christian" who said she planned to vote for Obama.
"Well, let me ask you a question. Do you like partial birth abortion?" Her face contorted into a picture of disgust.
"No, no! That's horrible!"
"Well, guess what your pal Obama thinks should be legal. That's right, partial-birth abortion."
And I stole one vote from Obama that night.
- There is a lot more that bothers me about Obama. His completely undistinguished Senate record. His claim that small children need more sex ed in public schools. That phony pandering to Christians. His worship of Kenya. That dreadfully bad answer about why he sent his kids to private school a few debates back. His assertion that we need to drop more bombs on Pakistan, which implies to me that he'll sort out his foreign policy by throwing darts at a map of Asia. The fact that Andrew Sullivan, that insufferable twerp, sallivates over him. The way in which an empty suit with the middle name of a dictator we just outsed could trick so many smart people into endorsing him despite a complete dearth of substance.
Ramin, I just noticed your post. Here goes:
- I'm not saying the guy isn't smart, but he's a politician, which means he's an actor, which means he can memorize lines. Sean Penn could turn out a performance that moves me to tears, yet I wouldn't trust the guy to shine my shoes in real life.
- Giuliani sure does inspire a lot of hate from Democrats, though I'm not 100% sure why. All of that shit where he cheated on his wives and ran around at homosexual gatherins wearing a dress is usually the kind of thing that Democrats like and Republicans hate. I like that, unlike Mitt Romney, he at least acknowledges that he is anti-gun, but promises not to push gun control as a president. Romney now claims to be a hardcore gun nut even though he helped Massachusettes become the state with the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. There are places in Europe that are easier to own guns in than in Massachusettes.
To everyone:
- I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters are uncomfortable with some of his policies, but support him anyway. Why? Because he seems like an honorable man who isn't out to ruin anybody, something that probably can't be said about one single other candidate on both sides. I'll almost certainly be supporting him on 01/03/08.
New info: Susan says she wants to vote for Ron Paul, too. I suppose if Paul can get the support of her father, who hates Republicans, then he has some sort of appeal that is broad. I can't say the same for any other candidate.
Just a few more notes,
On Obama, touche! He is a good actor, and possibly not much else. Alas, I still give him the benefit of the doubt.
On Juliani, I don't like him because really, he does seem phony, like a right-wing analogue of Obama. Listening to him, it basically sounds like he is saying "As president, I promise I will lay down, spread my ass-cheeks, and be a the most loyal bitch of the Evangelical Christians." He seems to think winning the presidancy is driving hard to the Christian-right and not backing down no matter how ridiculous the political stances he is backing. A lot of republicans sound like that, but Juliani just seems to be trying harder. Further, it irritated me like nothing else the way he laughed out-loud at Ron Paul as he was speaking on the debate held by Fox.
And I agree with you on Ron Paul. He does seem to be the most honorable candidate out there. And like you said, I just can't agree with some of his policies. I also give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he actually realizes that these goals of his, like eliminating the IRS, FBI, or pulling out of Iraq cold-turkey (is that what he is getting at?) are just ideals to work towards without actually achieving them. But you can't tell just by listening to his speeches.
To begin with, anyone who doesn't support Barack Obama is a racist. Yeah, that's right, I said it.
Seriously though, I don't see how you come to call him out on "Kenya worship."
I totally disagree with your assesment of his firearms policy. Though, once again, I don't think that there is anything a president could really do to change the second amendment anyway.
I do agree with the general agreement of everyone here that Hillary Clinton is the last person who should be allowed in the white house. Something about a person who's most valuable political asset is being married to a former president just doesn't seem right.
James, your assesment of non-subsidizing statements is blasphemy in Iowa, but if corporate producers were reined in and not allowed to add 25% to the market and artificially driving down the price of meat, then running smaller farming operations would be economically viable.
Not only that, but many of those subsidies you talk about are ecological subsidies, for farmers involved in setting aside strips of land for programs through the FAWS or local DNR. These programs are not only of concern to Sierra Club members and long haired tree hugging hippies, but also to the hunting gun-owners and outdoorsman who support gun rights entirely.
The point here is that it's a mistake to talk about these issues like they're entirely seperated bullet points. While it's tempting to break it down like that it just doesn't work. Conservation, farming, and gun ownership are tied together in a way that is similar to sex education and reproductive rights.
Nothing exists in a vaccuum.
I am a bit ashamed that I pegged Susan wrongly, I figured that Israelis' hatred of Obama would mean he was a shoe in for her vote.
Specifically to your point about partial birth abortions I'd like to say something that's going to sounds as cold and unfeeling as I imagine Hillary Clinton's vagina to be. In my experience, most Americans are depressed sons and daughters of bitches who wish they had never been born. They complain about life so much that I think it must be a favor to the unborn to spare them the trip through this shithole of a life. When one considers some of the people who are allowed to be parents, it really must come to mind that some kids might have been better off dead before they even leave the womb.
On the other hand, adoption is a perfectly legitamate option.
What I find more disgusting than allowing PBA, are politicians who would outlaw abortion entirely. If you consider a complete ban then you have to ask yourself some fundamental questions.
1. What crime would the mother be charged with? What crime would the doctor be charged with?
2. Do you really want this procedure to go back to the days before Roe v. Wade, when a motel and a coathanger were the tools of the trade?
Moving on.
Women in the military. You can think it is a ridiculous idea all you want. The simple fact is that for years now women have been clambering for "equal rights" which a quick look at how wages stack up will show you isn't the case.
During high school I thought it was shit that the girls PE tests were ridiculously easier than the boys. I still think that, but being a college graduate I am further removed from it. The selective service registration however still affects me and I find myself thinking of it as another part of society where the femenist movement needs to put up or shut up. Equal rights means equal risks.
I think that covers everything I really wanted to get down here. Except for,
In a discussion I recently had with some people concerning politics, we ended upon the conclusion that politicians, especially senators and representatives aren't really interested in making changes for the better. What they're really interested in is the status quo. That's what got them elected, and that's what's going to keep them where they are. Consider for a moment that the incumbency rate in congress is something like 97 percent. We're just not putting any new blood in there, it's like all we're interested in is intellectual inbreeding.
I reckon we're all a bit racist! Whether or not we want to be.
A few more points:
- I sort of regretted the Kenya remark right after I made it. Not because I don't think it is accurate, but because I didn't bother to explain it. But if you remember Obama from a few years ago, back when he was assuming that he wouldn't run for president until 2016 or something, he used to talk about it all the time. I've read a few articles about how his first book drones on endlessly about it, as well as suggesting that all white people are racists. And I don't mean racists like they tense up when a black guy is in line behind them at an ATM, but racist in a severe manner. I am irritated at the notion that racism is a trait exclusive to white people.
Obama's statements, disregarding a recent one tailor made to pander to an audience of rural Iowans, have not once indicated that he believes in anything other than absolute gun control, ie the abolition of the right (or even privelage) to own a firearm. John Lott, a firearms scholar well known in gun rights/control circles, claims to have known Obama from law school, and says the same thing.
I'll admit, I'm not an expert on farming and big corporations related to it. I can say that I oppose corporate welfare just as I do the individual welfare we give to small farmers. I've nothing against corporations or individuals, but if they can't earn, then why should the government prop them up?
That said, I really don't have a problem with the government ensuring that land is conserved, but I think the problem is sometimes overstated.
I didn't know that the Israelis' hated Obama! I can imagine that they aren't Ron Paul fans, either.
I'm not advocating a total ban on abortion. I do think that partial-birth abortion needs to be illegal, though, because even from an atheistic standpoint that should be considered murder.
About the new blood: I put fourth that if George W. Bush could run for a third term, he might actually win. I know that sounds hard to believe, but I think you might even be more right than you realize. You can bet that both Reagan and Clinton would have gotten term number three had they been able to.
James, sometimes it seems like you need a message board rather than a comment section.
My only comment is about farm subsidies. Look at it this way, these people grow the food you eat. When the country is covered with condos and strip malls and beef costs $50 a pound, you might wish you had been singing a different tune.
The economy is built on farmers. Without food, the who country crumbles.
Post a Comment