I think that the 2-party election process is not so much about any specific candidate and what they want to bring to the table. It's really a conflict over idealogy. On the one hand is the idealogy of helping the disadvantaged, regulating corporations for the public good, positive environmental policy, progressive taxation that attempts to correct for the unequal distribution of wealth, and trying to preserve individual rights. On the other is the idealogy of bootstraps, trickle down economics, deregulation of industry, fighting wars to ensure corporate access to the resources of other nations, and a dominant religion influencing public policy at the expense of personal liberty.
For those of you who are undecided because your ideology is split or some other reason, I offer a simple reason to vote for Barack Obama. He offers a message of hope. We are a country burdened by a poor economy, 2 wars, trememdous debt, 8 years of negativity and having been manipulated by fear. It's time to replace the fear with hope. With a belief that we hold the power to change our fates, and a willingness to make that happen.
For the rest of you, struggling with the ideologies, if you look at the whole list, it seems pretty obvious which party has the best interest of the American people in mind. It's easy to focus on just one point, rather than taking the list as a whole. For those of you who are voting republican based on economic policy, I direct your attention to this excellent article in the NY Times "Would Obama's Plan be Faster, Fairer, Stronger?" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?scp=1&sq=Obama.
It reports the history of the US economy from 1948-2007, and summarizes the nations economic health according to which party held office. Turns out trickle up economics is better for EVERYONE! Even the wealthy. Gross national product rose an average of 2.78% annually per capita during Democratic administrations versus just 1.64% with the Republicans in the White House. Family income growth rose for the wealthiest 2.12% annually with Democratic presidents versus 1.9% with Republicans (a smallish, but significant), and for the poorest 2.64% with a Democratic President versus 0.43% while under Republican dominion (Wow! That's where the huge wage gap and impoverization of the nation came from!). This shows that the pocketbook vote ought to go the the Democrats, regardless of your current wealth.
I see the heartland of this country foregoing their best interests on issues of public safety and economics because they have narrowed their focus on what they belief is a moral issue.
Faith is a powerful motivator. The ideology of "sanctity of human life" strikes the emotional response. If you are motivated to base your political views on that issue, I sympathize. I also offer an alternative. I believe that the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Provide access to affordable birth control, educate people (especially the youth) on how to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies and disease. Of course let them know the safest way is not to have sex, but accept that atleast 1/2 of them will ignore that advise (Yes, 1/2 of them, at age 16, its 50%). Those people need to know their options, and the reliability of each one. I believe the next best way to prevent abortions is to improve a person's socio-economic standing. Education is the number 1 way to do this. Employment with a fair wage is number 2. By and large desperate people take desperate actions.
I believe that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy has a choice between several bad options. In most cases, any choice with irrevocably change that woman's life, and likely leave her with regrets and heartache. Option 1--Keep the baby. We are a society that judges people first. Someone who is pregnant without meeting the normal conditions (adult, married, steady income) is ostracized. Add to that the burden of raising children without adequate financial means. That's a recipe for regret. Option 2--Give the child up for adoption. This choice must be a terrible emotional burden. Carry a child within one's body for 9 months, suffer the wear and tear of the pregnancy, develop a relationship with the unborn child, then right after birth, give that child to the unknown and spent the rest of your life wondering what became of him. Option 3--Make the problem go away. Avoid the 9 months of discomford, stares and whispers of strangers, and dramatic farewell. Try to come to terms with the decision. In some cases, make this decision under diress with the additional burden of severe defects, risk to personal life, or pregnancy resulting from assault.
If it were me, I would not want to decide which of those fates to take. It would be some small assurance to atleast know that the consequences were my own making. I feel lucky that I was armed with the education necessary to avoid having to make that decision. I hope to have the courage not to judge another's choices and support their decision.
It's beyond my comprehension how "sanctity of life" surpasses every other idealogy when applied to a tiny budding embryo that resembles a bean or a tadpole, but is no longer part of the conversation on the issue of foreign policy. I think someone who was true to the ideology of preserving life must by definition be a pacifist. Dropping bombs on poor people overseas is reprehensible, should be avoided, and never taken lightly. Capturing people overseas with scant evidence of their political leanings, holding them in secret locations, and torturing them in an attempt to extract information to justify our actions is reprehensible. It shows a disregard for others life, liberty, and human dignity. Cloaking this activity in a robe of patriotism and national security seems to have blinded the nation's apparent moral fortitude.
The 2 party system gives an indication of what a candidate brings to the table. But it gives voters a false sense of security that a candidate from their "Party" will share their belief system. It's an excuse not to educate one's self on the issues. I think we'd be better off with a non-partisan system with a primary, followed by a run-off between the 2 highest vote getting candidates. With such a simple system, voters would be encouraged to learn about the candidates, and it would be much harder to conceal bad ideology behind a curtain of single issues.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Some debate #2 Politi-talk.
So I promised some politi-talk, which I haven't come through on yet. At Kristin's request and to vent my frustration watching tonights debate, here are a few words. I'm watching the CBS newsfeed because for the 1st debate, both candidates were always on frame. There was an annoying billowing flag between them, but I want to watch John McCain's eyebrows arch and the vein on his forehead pop, so I'm sticking with them. My other reason for chosing CBS, is I've decided (after my Sarah Palin rant) that I have a responsibility to support women who have achieved success on their merits. While I've never been a fan of The Today Show, Katie Courick does fit that description.
I won't keep a time-linear commentary, I'll skip around to try to keep themes the same, but I'm sure this wil come out kind of scattered. Many topics will be broached tonight, and I've got to vent.
I'm looking forward to John McCain agreeing profusely with Barack's answers. What Obama's got going has worked for him. McCain is already trying to co-opt the themes of change, reform, and the state of the economy being not so strong. Since when can the encumbent party, and a campaign platform that agrees vehemently with the failed policies of the current administration be the agent of reform? (Maybe they should get themselves one of those little people, even smaller than the other guy's.) Oh, there's one--taxes. Keep the tax code as it is (does that mean keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? I'll bet it does.) and give the middle class a tax cut by doubling the tax break for having a kid.
Ahh. There's that familiar inch thick billowing flag, but they're being a bit stingy with it tonight.
Here comes a topic of conversation. Mr. McCain's suspension of his campaign in order to solve the bailout, er, I meant to say "rescue". Apparently it took him a full 22 hours to get his private jet from NYC to Washington, making stops with Katie Courick (to try to diffuse some of Mrs. Palin's shocking display of inadequacy), a fundraiser, a hotel stay, and finally arriving at Washington late in the afternoon after Congress had come to an agreement. In the meeting he convened, he had nothing to say, and the key players walked out no longer in agreement. He did cancel his visit to Dave Letterman--now that's sacrifice. Calling off campaigns to attend to something urgent has been a historical theme for the campaigning John McCain. Remember the hurricane last month during the Republican convention? The convention was called off Monday (convenient to keep the wildly unpopular president off the premises), the press went to Louisiana, but the Republicans partied like it was 1999 (or January 2001). I learned that John McCain has a history of calling off campaigns when the going gets tough, he's been doing for years. Is that what we want in a President? Someone who ready to call a time-out whenever the going gets tough?
Oh, by the way. Fannie & Freddie weren't the perpetrators of predatory loans, that was mostly unregulated private enterprise at work.
Does John McCain know how long it takes to get a productive new domestic oil well or build a nuclear power plant? It's decades. That's the same time frame (or more) necessary to get clean, carbon neutral, domestic renewable energy sources on line at significant levels. Thirty years of the drill and mine and war mentality of gaining energy indepence has gotten us more and more dependent on an energy supply provided by cartels. Ripping the solar panels off the White House roof in 1980 may've been a great publicity stunt, but it didn't help the nation's energy dependence one whit. I appreciate Barack Obama's commitment to reduce the CO2 emissions of this country drastically, quickly, and to levels that even me, the environmentalist, was surprised to hear. (Don't get me wrong, I believe its possible, but I'm a realist--I don't expect my government to make big steps.) Investing billions in renewable energy like a 21th century New Deal is the path to real energy independence. As a bonus, its an investment in our country's infrastructure, technology, and business. Innovation is the way to ensure the US economy is strong. Investing in the old way of doing things will keep us in the dark ages and in short time, allow the rest of the world to surpass the US. Investing in technology and innovation will ensure that we have both energy independence, and a strong business community with a desirable, marketable product (you know, like the way Japan has clobbered the US auto industry by making a reliable, fuel efficient, economical fleet of vehicles).
McCain is against defense spending? Someone should let my company's PAC know.
Let's talk about regulation. First, I'll start with my own belief system. I believe that government should regulate corporations on issues of food safety, environmental regulations, worker's rights, public safety, and risk management. As we've seen recently and many times over, when the sole motivator is profit, and the public's well being is at stake, it must be tempered by rules. I also belief that the individual should be de-regulated. If someone makes a decision that affects only that person, its not the government's business. The government has no place in the consenting bedroom. the government has no ability to regulate an individuals substance use, it doesn't work (of course operation of a vehicle under the influence of any substance, legal or otherwise, absolutely must be regulated). A bunch of old white guys has absolutely no business deciding which medical procedures young women should have access to.
John McCain has a 26 year record (except for the last 2 weeks) of eliminating regulation on corporations whenever possible. That's a policy that has gotten us an economic stock market, credit market, and housing meltdown. Deregulation has resulted in precipitous increases in energy prices, still cripling those of us who's state's deregulated, and at the extreme resulted in the pillaging of California's electricity budget and ultimate collapse of Enron.
We are dependent on government regulations (and appropriate enforcement) to ensure the safety of food, pharmaceuticals, and consumer products. Regulations should be keeping melamine out of baby formula and lead out of their toys. Regulations give us a 40 hour workweek in a safe work environment. Regulations give us confidence that our insurance company will come through when our car or our health fail. Regulations have taken us from a nation where our rivers were so pulluted that some of them caught fire, to a nation where we have parks on the riverbanks and feel safe taking a kayak out (Next step is mercury and PCB free fishing!!).
I will give John McCain credit for his position on earmarks. I haven't seen a challenge to his claim of not taking any for Arizona during his tenure in the senate. That is a good thing. I believe that the congress has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the nation. Re-election hinges on pandering to the constituents back home, and for much of the congress, the secondary requirement has been priority 1. Earmarks have been abused to fund pet projects back home for many representatives. The biggest example of this is Alaska, with the aptly named "Bridge to Nowhere" (Yup, Sara Palin campaigned on that and still took the money for other highway projects, plus funding for another bridge to Nowhere Wasilla, AK). This is one McCain idea that Barack Obama has co-opted, and while he didn't claim an egregious amount of money to send back home, he has pledged to stop requesting specific funds for IL projects.
Diplomacy. Barack Obama has been a proponent of diplomacy with all countries regardless of their standing in the international community. John McCain wants to follow the lead of Bush/Cheney policy and shoot first, never bothering to ask questions. I believe in diplomacy. I'll use China as an example. It's an old style communist country with a long history of oppressing their people. We've chosen to chastise the policies we disagree with, but embrace China as a trade partner (maybe we'll put some regulations into that agreement someday and ask for worker's rights or consumer and environmental protections). Having China has a trade partner has given us access to cheap goods, and has given the people of China access to our culture, consumerism, and democracy. They get it in a censored form, but they still get it. As a result, China is making steps toward personal freedoms and has become a player on the international stage. In contrast, Iran is a country the US currently refuses to talk to, and has been threatening for the last 6 1/2 years. It is led by a theocracy and a prime minister that spews vile, threatening, nonsense. The young people of Iran on the otherhand are largely educated and hungry for freedom. I believe we should foster their desire. Issueing our own threats and refusing to engage Iran, while we burden the country with sanctions (restricting access to cheap Chinese goods, media, and food) will not serve our country well in the future. Leaving a vacuum of positive idealogy in Iran helps foster extremism and ultimately terrorism.
Some thoughts on the follow-up analysis.
I don't understand what the press calls "Scoring the debate". Apparently, its about quick soundbites, not about 1-addressing the actual question that was asked, 2-educating the voters on the campaign platford 3-honesty. You win or lose on a one-liner that might be delivered by someone like the Govern-ator himself. I just don't get it.
Who is this lady in with the "I can't say who had the better plan, but I firmly believe its every American's right to health care, and the children, and blah blah blah" Was she listening at all? The question was more than answered tonight.
Token black Republican. 'Nuf said.
I won't keep a time-linear commentary, I'll skip around to try to keep themes the same, but I'm sure this wil come out kind of scattered. Many topics will be broached tonight, and I've got to vent.
I'm looking forward to John McCain agreeing profusely with Barack's answers. What Obama's got going has worked for him. McCain is already trying to co-opt the themes of change, reform, and the state of the economy being not so strong. Since when can the encumbent party, and a campaign platform that agrees vehemently with the failed policies of the current administration be the agent of reform? (Maybe they should get themselves one of those little people, even smaller than the other guy's.) Oh, there's one--taxes. Keep the tax code as it is (does that mean keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? I'll bet it does.) and give the middle class a tax cut by doubling the tax break for having a kid.
Ahh. There's that familiar inch thick billowing flag, but they're being a bit stingy with it tonight.
Here comes a topic of conversation. Mr. McCain's suspension of his campaign in order to solve the bailout, er, I meant to say "rescue". Apparently it took him a full 22 hours to get his private jet from NYC to Washington, making stops with Katie Courick (to try to diffuse some of Mrs. Palin's shocking display of inadequacy), a fundraiser, a hotel stay, and finally arriving at Washington late in the afternoon after Congress had come to an agreement. In the meeting he convened, he had nothing to say, and the key players walked out no longer in agreement. He did cancel his visit to Dave Letterman--now that's sacrifice. Calling off campaigns to attend to something urgent has been a historical theme for the campaigning John McCain. Remember the hurricane last month during the Republican convention? The convention was called off Monday (convenient to keep the wildly unpopular president off the premises), the press went to Louisiana, but the Republicans partied like it was 1999 (or January 2001). I learned that John McCain has a history of calling off campaigns when the going gets tough, he's been doing for years. Is that what we want in a President? Someone who ready to call a time-out whenever the going gets tough?
Oh, by the way. Fannie & Freddie weren't the perpetrators of predatory loans, that was mostly unregulated private enterprise at work.
Does John McCain know how long it takes to get a productive new domestic oil well or build a nuclear power plant? It's decades. That's the same time frame (or more) necessary to get clean, carbon neutral, domestic renewable energy sources on line at significant levels. Thirty years of the drill and mine and war mentality of gaining energy indepence has gotten us more and more dependent on an energy supply provided by cartels. Ripping the solar panels off the White House roof in 1980 may've been a great publicity stunt, but it didn't help the nation's energy dependence one whit. I appreciate Barack Obama's commitment to reduce the CO2 emissions of this country drastically, quickly, and to levels that even me, the environmentalist, was surprised to hear. (Don't get me wrong, I believe its possible, but I'm a realist--I don't expect my government to make big steps.) Investing billions in renewable energy like a 21th century New Deal is the path to real energy independence. As a bonus, its an investment in our country's infrastructure, technology, and business. Innovation is the way to ensure the US economy is strong. Investing in the old way of doing things will keep us in the dark ages and in short time, allow the rest of the world to surpass the US. Investing in technology and innovation will ensure that we have both energy independence, and a strong business community with a desirable, marketable product (you know, like the way Japan has clobbered the US auto industry by making a reliable, fuel efficient, economical fleet of vehicles).
McCain is against defense spending? Someone should let my company's PAC know.
Let's talk about regulation. First, I'll start with my own belief system. I believe that government should regulate corporations on issues of food safety, environmental regulations, worker's rights, public safety, and risk management. As we've seen recently and many times over, when the sole motivator is profit, and the public's well being is at stake, it must be tempered by rules. I also belief that the individual should be de-regulated. If someone makes a decision that affects only that person, its not the government's business. The government has no place in the consenting bedroom. the government has no ability to regulate an individuals substance use, it doesn't work (of course operation of a vehicle under the influence of any substance, legal or otherwise, absolutely must be regulated). A bunch of old white guys has absolutely no business deciding which medical procedures young women should have access to.
John McCain has a 26 year record (except for the last 2 weeks) of eliminating regulation on corporations whenever possible. That's a policy that has gotten us an economic stock market, credit market, and housing meltdown. Deregulation has resulted in precipitous increases in energy prices, still cripling those of us who's state's deregulated, and at the extreme resulted in the pillaging of California's electricity budget and ultimate collapse of Enron.
We are dependent on government regulations (and appropriate enforcement) to ensure the safety of food, pharmaceuticals, and consumer products. Regulations should be keeping melamine out of baby formula and lead out of their toys. Regulations give us a 40 hour workweek in a safe work environment. Regulations give us confidence that our insurance company will come through when our car or our health fail. Regulations have taken us from a nation where our rivers were so pulluted that some of them caught fire, to a nation where we have parks on the riverbanks and feel safe taking a kayak out (Next step is mercury and PCB free fishing!!).
I will give John McCain credit for his position on earmarks. I haven't seen a challenge to his claim of not taking any for Arizona during his tenure in the senate. That is a good thing. I believe that the congress has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the nation. Re-election hinges on pandering to the constituents back home, and for much of the congress, the secondary requirement has been priority 1. Earmarks have been abused to fund pet projects back home for many representatives. The biggest example of this is Alaska, with the aptly named "Bridge to Nowhere" (Yup, Sara Palin campaigned on that and still took the money for other highway projects, plus funding for another bridge to Nowhere Wasilla, AK). This is one McCain idea that Barack Obama has co-opted, and while he didn't claim an egregious amount of money to send back home, he has pledged to stop requesting specific funds for IL projects.
Diplomacy. Barack Obama has been a proponent of diplomacy with all countries regardless of their standing in the international community. John McCain wants to follow the lead of Bush/Cheney policy and shoot first, never bothering to ask questions. I believe in diplomacy. I'll use China as an example. It's an old style communist country with a long history of oppressing their people. We've chosen to chastise the policies we disagree with, but embrace China as a trade partner (maybe we'll put some regulations into that agreement someday and ask for worker's rights or consumer and environmental protections). Having China has a trade partner has given us access to cheap goods, and has given the people of China access to our culture, consumerism, and democracy. They get it in a censored form, but they still get it. As a result, China is making steps toward personal freedoms and has become a player on the international stage. In contrast, Iran is a country the US currently refuses to talk to, and has been threatening for the last 6 1/2 years. It is led by a theocracy and a prime minister that spews vile, threatening, nonsense. The young people of Iran on the otherhand are largely educated and hungry for freedom. I believe we should foster their desire. Issueing our own threats and refusing to engage Iran, while we burden the country with sanctions (restricting access to cheap Chinese goods, media, and food) will not serve our country well in the future. Leaving a vacuum of positive idealogy in Iran helps foster extremism and ultimately terrorism.
Some thoughts on the follow-up analysis.
I don't understand what the press calls "Scoring the debate". Apparently, its about quick soundbites, not about 1-addressing the actual question that was asked, 2-educating the voters on the campaign platford 3-honesty. You win or lose on a one-liner that might be delivered by someone like the Govern-ator himself. I just don't get it.
Who is this lady in with the "I can't say who had the better plan, but I firmly believe its every American's right to health care, and the children, and blah blah blah" Was she listening at all? The question was more than answered tonight.
Token black Republican. 'Nuf said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)