Where stand thou on the issues this election? I’ve put some of the candidates’ self-professed stances below, though please look up more details if you'd like additional info. In the end, the candidates quite willingly admit they have different philosophies about what will be the best for our country and our people. So...
Showing posts with label Blog polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog polls. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Polling Everyone Out There...
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Live Bloggin' as I Watch the Repubs' Convention, Part III (McCain's Speech)
So, waiting on McCain to roll up to the podium here, and thought I'd try a final live post here as I watch (live video if it available here). It'll be nice for these two conventions to finally be over so I can get some more sleep; it's neat to have been able to watch a bit of both though, since I (unfortunately) didn't pay much attention to the last election.
Okay, now this video of him is starting...so again, his story is more than I could ever imagine, and I completely admire the way he stayed there longer when he had the option to leave. Watch this piece on PBS' NewsHour to hear some other POWs who support McCain, but another who does not (who was with him in Hanoi, Vietnam).
I hate that line in the convention video though of "keeping our money in our pockets" in regard to taxes--it isn't always self-centered to think that way, but I think it completely encourages it. I'll tell you what they can do with that line in the video about "the stars being aligned" for McCain to be president too--that's the fate-based talk that tries to trump reason, and I've got about zero patience for it. There are reasons, many of them, to vote one way or another, and they relate to the everyday needs of people out there, our country, our role in the world, etc.
Alright, he's on now though and is talking about Bush "leading us in these dark days following the worst attack in American history"--I'm not sure I've ever seen Bush "lead" on a damn thing, to be frank. I don't think he has that circumspection; that's not a demeaning comment as much as it is an honest one--leaders don't come around everyday, they develop and are seasoned as they move into the position.
Nice comments there about Cindy McCain, I appreciate that he would lift her up and compliment her.
Now he's addressing "Obama and his supporters," saying they have his "respect and admiration"; I'm not sure that's true given his mocking of their support, calling it support for a mere "celebrity." The crowd here's one that looks more like that which is caught up with a celebrity, chanting "U-S-A" on and off with no seeming ties to what McCain's actually saying. It's not that I don't respect them as people, I just think that loving your country without standards isn't love, and that's what I think many Americans unfortunately fall into (and what this crowd is reminding me of).
He's talking about fighting corruption and pork-barrel spending now--both of which are true to a point, and valid, I just don't think he's taking the country in the right way.
And now into Iraq. He's saying we would all be threatened if we'd pulled out of Iraq sooner; that's not true and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and others have stood by that. There's no admittance of his vote that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Some nice personal stories of people struggling and a soldier who died in Iraq; those stories are of course needed for any politician to stay connected to real people.
A cut at Obama there about his vote for an energy bill that did a lot for conservation, though there was some compromise that necessitated leaving in some giveaways to oil companies.
He's going into various things now, but mentioned the idea of respecting a "culture of life," getting at abortion issues, though you won't hear him come out saying the death penalty needs to go (though Obama isn't either, not fully at least).
Now into stuff against Obama. Bold-faced lies about tax increases--again, Obama's said it will only be those making $250,000 or more who would pay slightly more in taxes. More scare tactics about health care too, saying there will be a "bureaucrat" between some citizens and their health care. But John, what about the dollar bills that are in between some 47 million citizens and their health care now? And the profit-making insurance companies that charge more to all involved by trying to maximize profit?
He's talking on education here now, and there are some fair things being said; but he's pushing the thing of parental choice as the Republican talking point it is--it may be helpful, but it's not where many believe they should focus. And now he's saying Obama would make education answer to unions--how about when he stood up to them and said the controversial thing of providing merit-based pay to teachers? Yeah, too complicated for the masses I guess.
And see, here's one of my issues with McCain and the Repubs: they mention drilling offshore first again and again when talking about energy issues. It's one thing if they were saying here and there it could be helpful to invest a little (though I definitely am suspicious of that too), but they make it the first thing they talk about consistently. It's a ploy the way they're playing it, period.
Now onto foreign policy. Stoke 'em John stoke 'em, stoke those foreign countries, threaten them, just what we need, more bellicose. I just can't get over that he'd joke about bombing Iran...He says he hates war, and I could believe that; but that doesn't mean he sees it as the absolute last resort that it must be (if that), particularly joking about it like he has (and voting for it with Iraq).
Bipartisanship is good, as he's talking about here, but the tasks and goals the president pushes and fights for matter, they simply do; there are problems that have to be worked at with due diligence and a humane perspective, and so it matters what solutions are being offered.
Now he's talking about his time in prison camp again...
"Stand up to fight against our enemies" he ended with as one of his last lines though? Geez, I actually liked the other calls preceding it to serve our country, to seek justice, etc., but I don't like the idea of characterizing some general "enemies" that we need to fight against; sure there are enemies, so to speak, of America, but I'd much rather have leaders calling for us to see how much we have in common with the world, how we can restore healthy friendships with countries, and so forth.
That's it though. I have to say I'm underwhelmed. I liked some things he had to say, particularly his calls to serve causes greater than ourselves, but I didn't hear much in the way of innovative policies to facilitate some of that service through the government. Some may shirk at the idea of innovative government programs, but it's simply the concept, as Congressman Barney Frank apparently said at one time, of people working together to do more than they can separately through an entity we call government. Many have done great things with it over time: social security so our vulnerable elderly are cared for; the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) under FDR to give young men work and to build up roads and infrastructure in America; the Peace Corps and the wonderful work that's been done through it; unemployment for those who could be in trouble because of unexpectedly losing a job (I myself have experienced this and completely appreciated being able to receive unemployment for a month or so while looking for a job; of course it can be abused, but there are safeguards put in place to attempt to ensure individuals are looking for jobs, etc.). All of these could be overdone or done badly, but I would argue with any that say they are not needed.
I'm getting into polls here though, they're a handy way to rate perspectives, so here's another related to the four government programs I just mentioned:
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Live Bloggin' as I Watch the Repubs' Convention, Part II (Palin's Speech)
I started a new live post here now that Sarah Palin's about to speak at the Republican National Convention, and will throw some thoughts on it below as she speaks...
She's a good speaker, that's something...Anyone who's anyone can respect that she has family in the military, though I like a bit more VA Senator Jim Webb's approach to campaigning, where he didn't mention that his son was in Iraq...Nothing's lost on me in terms of the good it could be to have a woman in the White House, and the potential to advocate for women--a very good thing, certainly...
She's now telling her story in general, which is very frank-sounding and nice. I just worry it gets more emotional than meaningful, though I may be wrong. It's just that all four candidates in this race, with the VPs and presidential candidates, all have fine stories that are endearing--they are not the main reasons votes should be cast though; there are too, too many issues for that to be the case...
There it was, she just lost much of my respect--thought from the way she was talking she might not. She said a mayor (i.e., her) is like a community organizer (i.e., Obama), except that "a mayor has actual responsibilities"--what a low blow right? Geez, have some basic respect lady...They said Bush's past speech writer wrote her speech, I can tell. It's good she has "hometown values" as some in her party have been saying, too bad mutual respect doesn't make the cut of those "values" of hers...
Good stuff, she was able to cut spending on unnecessary stuff she's saying now--honestly, it's great, it's fair. I can respect that; it's not that I cannot respect her and McCain, and how they've done this or that, it's just that I think the world's bigger than they make it, encompassing many more issues than they are about...
Drilling's come up again, depressing. It's just criminal it seems to play this as an issue that matters much at all when it would not have any effects for over 10 years. Geez, get on with something of substance...
Now she takes a swipe at Obama because he doesn't use the word "victory" in regard to our war in Iraq? Come on lady. And again with another small-minded swat at him, something about him parting waters. It's just pathetic. If they want to argue about who will do what's better, that would be, well, better, but this type of discussion isn't a discussion at all, it's just small and unhelpful.
Now she talks about small business owners being ill-off because of the Dems tax policies--too bad Obama and company have said they will only raise taxes on those making over $250,000 plus a year; not sure what "small farmers" and small business owners she's talking about will in any large way be affected by that.
I think Palin may think she's running for mayor again, given the base level her speech is moving forward on. I really can't imagine what kind of conversation she'd have with Obama if she ran into him after the speech--it's like throwing straight insults at someone and then wondering how they could have a real conversation after (or be considered an adult even).
It's striking now, literally, that Palin is speaking about McCain's time as a POW--making the third time tonight it's been talked about in a speech; AND she's speaking longer about it than she's actually spoken about issues. Shew, it's pretty depleting watching this whole thing, just, again, so small-minded; and I really did like how she started out, as I noted above.
And I can comfortably say that this kind of small-mindedness is exactly why one would leave this type of speech a bit despondent, versus the more expansive thinking that Obama's about--and yes, his would only be words if it didn't have actions that have and will be taken behind them; actions such as bringing about affordable health care for all Americans, only bringing soldiers to war if absolutely necessary, attacking racism face-on, hugely expanding volunteerism in the US, bringing early education to all children, and so on.
Anyone want to go out and volunteer? Kind of moves you that direction watching this. Leave any thoughts on Palin or anything else below, would be interested to hear what others think.
PS--It's disturbing that they brought out an African American on with the two other musicians after Palin spoke, even though he didn't actually do anything musically (really, nothing); I'm all for diversity, don't get me wrong, but I'm just not for token appearances of any minorities like that.
Update: I'll put links to the videos of some of these speeches here when they become available, but a quick poll for the moment:
Update 3: Obama has a good comment today in response to the lame shots by Palin, Giuliani and others at his time as a community organizer:
Monday, February 4, 2008
Hillary's Earned Opposition: "Obama is a Reaganite"
I believe the Clintons have, in many ways, been earning the negative opposition they are facing. As I noted here, this opposition, and the inseparable sentiments about her husband, are enough to bring into question: 1. her ability to win the election in Nov., if nominated over Obama; 2. her ability to build support for the Democratic party and not quickly lose the opportunity for the party to move forward a progressive agenda over some number of years; and 3. perhaps most importantly, her desirability as a President, given the nature of the negative and disingenuous statements by her and Bill of recent (and this does not even touch on the myriad incidents and sordid history of their past years).
The example I'll discuss here is again, just one of the reasons why the Clintons have earned this opposition, and centers on an attack about two weeks ago, leveled by the Clintons on Obama for his "Reagan statement." In the South Carolina debate, as well as in paid advertisements, the Clintons denigrated Obama for his comments about Ronald Reagan. The terrible irony is that Bill Clinton, as detailed in this Washington Post article, praised Reagan in numerous ways during his run for the White House in 1991-1992. He said things praising Reagan's work on the Cold War, esteeming his "rhetoric in defense of freedom," and his work in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back." The Post article notes that during that time, the Memphis Commercial Appeal said that Bill "set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan," revealing his "readiness to defy his party's prevailing Reaganphobia."
Now, turning to Obama. The part of Obama's statement in question, which can be found in video and text form here, was as follows:
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing...I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."In response to these statements, as noted in the link from above, Hillary stated: "My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years." Her husband said, "[My wife's] principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks." Nowhere in Obama's statement does he say the Republicans had good ideas--nowhere. Rather, he says they had ideas that mobilized people, shook things up from the regular approach to things. As it says on this Chicago Tribune blog, "When the Clintons used "better" and "good" in alluding the Obama's remarks, they weren't paraphrasing, they weren't misremembering, they weren't distorting. They were simply lying."
Hillary went on to attempt to "call Obama out" on this in the SC debate two weeks ago; her statement and his reply can be found in the video below. In it, Obama points out that he has "spent a lifetime working against [Reagan's] policies," and that nowhere in his statement does he say Reagan's ideas were good or what was needed.
Hillary also paid for advertising, such as the radio ad below, that again seeks to paint Obama as one who accepts and endorses the ideas of Reagan (the ad was soon pulled from the air by the campaign):
I will not willingly accept these thin ethics again in a President, I just can't, it's not good for anyone involved. This is one reason, among others, that Obama has my vote. As noted in the wonderful thoughts of 90-year old NPR commentator Daniel Schorr, who won three Emmys in 1972 for his coverage of the Nixon Watergate lies, lying has become a shamefully acceptable practice. That short radio piece can be found here, with another short piece on lying in government here. Answer the poll below and/or write in a comment if you have any thoughts on this.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Obama, Obama, OBAMA.
As you can see to the right, if it were Feb. 12th today (the day of the Virginia primary), my vote would be cast. About two to three weeks ago I decided, based on the build-up of personal research and observation. I say that to preface a few posts that will explain some of why I feel this way; with those posts, I hope to address some of the main questions as I understand them regarding Obama and Hillary.
I'm big on audio books, and have listened to Obama's newest, the Audacity of Hope, but hope to do so again. It was over a year ago, and the details of his policy thoughts in there will stick out to me more now. I'm currently listening to Dreams from My Father, and it's great, and really reveals the diversity of his experience. So hopefully I'll be able to drop some lines from both in here as it makes sense, and if there's time (Super Tuesday next week may or may not bring it down to one candidate, the reviews are mixed right now). I will be interested to see if any other supporters of his are out there among readers, or if there are any votes in the opposite direction for Hillary or some of the Repub's still left in it--if so, feel free to email me, to drop your thoughts in the comment section, or to voice your support in the poll below (as you'll see, I started Obama off there with my vote). May the best man/woman win.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Do Obama and Clinton's Calls to "Include ALL in Debate" Ring Hollow?
If Obama and Clinton truly felt that Kucinich's exclusion from tonight's debate was an encroachment on the people's ability to choose, as they stated here, then it seems to me they could have refused to participate in tonight's debate (nevermind that Edwards did not call for this at all).
As a larger point, however, the basis for the ABC-WMUR exclusion of Kucinich, and any other candidate for that matter, is baseless. I say this because in a WMUR/CNN poll, conducted four days ago on Jan. 2nd, it stated:
"However, only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will vote for, 27% say they are leaning toward a candidate and 32% said they are still trying to decide."That statement, from one of WMUR's OWN polls, discredits their basis for excluding any candidate. I readily admit that ABC's reasoning is understandable: they want to, ostensibly, include the candidates whom voters are, according to polling, most demonstrably interested in--yet therein lies the question, do the voters know who they are interested in yet? And that question exactly is what, four days ago, WMUR, together with CNN, answered:
"...only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will vote for, 27% say they are leaning toward a candidate and 32% said they are still trying to decide." (emphasis added)Therefore, the question becomes, if only 42% of these New Hampshire Democratic primary voters have "definitely decided," how will the other 58% make up their mind? Well, one might
think it reasonable that they would watch the final Democratic debates, held a short three days before the New Hampshire primary. Not only is that reasonable, but is it not likely that many were waiting for this final debate to make up their mind? And what conclusion might they draw after tuning into this highly publicized media frenzy? Might it slightly (read: almost entirely) make them think that the only real options are the four candidates participating?Yet the elephant in the room is the fact that the 58% of undecided Democratic New Hampshire voters could still choose Kucinich, or Mike Gravel, who was also excluded. Yes, they could also not choose them, but there's the rub: many will feel the all-knowing media has presented them with the only real choices. Yet, with 58% still not certain, are there not enough in New Hampshire, not even counting Independents, to give Kucinich a strong showing? I'll just end with part of a recent Kucinich endorsement by Sean Penn, in which he stated:
"I’ve been torn lately, I’ve been torn by the allure of electability…here’s how simple it is. If those of us who truly believe in the Constitution of the United States, all of us, vote for Dennis Kucinich, he’ll be elected. Could we call him electable then?"Please consider going here and here to express your discontentment with ABC's decision (and vote in my poll below as well)--a protest in the streets would feel more refreshing, but a flood of their inbox may be a good option in the meantime. By the way, the numbers I quoted above from the WMUR/CNN poll are available at the bottom of page one in their survey, located here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
