To some of you who've been reading my posts, I may come across as a liberal nut job - or, at the very least an extremist. This is perhaps because of the anger behind the language that I use; there is genuine anger there, but my politics are closer to center than I've been letting on - you're getting a lot of negativity from me because I am a former Republican whose disenchantment was thorough and complete.
There are some good candidates appearing in 2008 on both sides of the aisle, and I've found something I like about each of them:
Hillary Clinton seems to be the most controversial of the bunch. More than any other politician I know, there are many people who seem to hate her, even a large number of Democrats or left-leaning people. I think I know more people who hate her than hate Bush, and I think I know why. On the surface, at least, Hillary Clinton seems to be the most disingenuous candidate out there. Even before the scandalous remarks from David Geffen, everyone already new that the Clinton's were shifty. I think that's a large part of what made Bush popular to begin with - Bush, whether he was right or wrong, believed in and stood behind every decision he made. You don't get that sense with either Clinton.
So whether you say that they have no integrity and do what makes them popular, or you argue like me that catering to public opinion is something that you should do to a large extent, if you're running a democracy, you can't deny that they do work in this system. And that's why I would be happy if Hillary Clinton won - she would be an effective politician, and the values that she champions are ones that I believe in.
Barack Obama is on the other end of that spectrum. He is actively campaigning on the fact that he is a Washington outsider, that with him in office, it won't be politics as usual. He's going to go for pretty much the same agenda, but he wants to bridge the divide between the partisan ranks. A vote for Obama is more a vote against the politics of today. Now whether or not you think Obama is genuine or not, Washington will take notice if you elect an outsider into office. Look at how they reacted to the November elections - despite the fact that the margin of victory in all of the key places was tight, it's being heralded as a mandate to end the war. The polls disagree; it was a mandate to end corruption in Congress, and if the Democrats aren't careful and do stupid shit like demanding a bigger plane to fly on and take lavish trips on a lobbyist's dime when they just made that sort of crap illegal, they're going to get their asses booted out of there in the next round. Obama also has another advantage - he had the foresight to predict that the Iraq War was a bad idea, and the courage to say so openly, even when to do so carried the label of being unpatriotic, at least one of which Clinton did not have (I suspect it was the latter). I would be happy if Obama won because it would be a huge step in cleaning up politics.
While I don't really give him any chances of winning, John Edwards is running an interesting campaign on a poverty initiative. He'll openly admit that he's going to raise taxes to get you there, but I respect that. A lot of the biggest problems in this country stem from the fact that society is so greatly stratified - and the gap between rich and poor has widened greatly over the past 10 years. I would be happy if Edwards won because I think he would do a great job at it, but I'm not betting on it.
Across the aisle, the front runner is tough-as-nails Rudy Giuliani, the hero of 9/11. Giuliani is good because he's already demonstrated he's capable of strong leadership, in New York of all places. This really hit home for me when I saw a review of the movie Bringing Out the Dead as a startling look a pre-Giuliani New York. The fact that his name alone is used to describe a change to what was once viewed as America's cesspool is amazing. And Giuliani is very moderate for a Republican - something that's earned him a lot of flack within the party, but is good for the rest of America. I'm not even talking about the validity of his positions here - I'm talking about a return to a centrist mentality from full-blown partisan ship. When asked where exactly it is that he is conservative, his response is that it's all in how he views taxes. I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't want to go dig up the link, but the Republicans view the economy as a private enterprise that the govern regulates, whereas the Democrats view the economy as government run. I'd be happy if Giuliani ran because of his leadership skills, and his sensible positions on social issues.
Then there's John McCain. I've always been an admirer of him, in part because he can push his politics without being condescending or partisan. I think he's veered a little bit off the Straight Talk Express in his effort to court evangelical conservatives, but I think he'd govern with reason, so I forgive him for that. And I applaud him as the cosponsor of the McCain-Fiengold bill aimed at finance reform. But he's been slipping in the polls lately, for his unpopular stance on the Iraq War. Even while the President holds out on the hope that sticking through it will help, McCain has the guts to put forth the unpopular position that we need even more troops, that we really do need to escalate. I'd be happy if McCain won because I have the sneaking suspicion that he's right.
But wait, you say, haven't you advocated this whole time that the war was a colossal mistake? Yes, I did, and I stand behind that. We're there because a bunch of PNAC assholes got the idea that the best way to ensure the strength of the American position was to spread democracy as far and wide as the could - without help, and in the face of the global community. It's not the idea that I think was fucked up - it was the attitude that dismissed any objections from the rest of the world.
But we're there now. And whether we got in on false pretenses or whether or not it was important to oust Saddam then, it is important to stay there now. Bush is right when he says that it is the greatest ideological issue of the 21st century (It is now, you asshole). I think McCain sees that the costs of failure are more far reaching then people are realising. And I'd be happy to see him President because I think he's the one guy out of any of them who may actually stabilize the country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I honestly have no idea who I'm going to vote for in 2008, but you had better believe it'll be something I think very long and thoroughly about.
You need to be more picky. Hillary Clinton can work the system, but to what end? Socialized health care? That's the values you hold? Think about it.
Obama says he wants to bridge the gap between the parties. So does President Bush. It doesn't mean anything other than "I wish other people would realize they're wrong." He has no history of working well with Republicans. Clean politics does not equal good politics. Remember Jimmy Carter.
Edwards is also disingenuous. How can you focus on poverty when your background is malpractice lawsuits? He's part of the reason health insurance is unaffordable and yet says he wants to help the poor.
Giuliani is your best bet for bi-partisan cooperation. It's in his history.
Personally I like McCain. He will have trouble with legislation because Republicans are so hesitant to support him, but I think he will bring transparency to the executive branch.
Let's play a little game called Angel's Advocate - I believe that every now and then, the conventional wisdom of the "devil's advocate" needs to be challenged itself, and it appears that this advocate has already drawn his/her line in the sand.
Do I want socialized health care? To a large degree, yes, and if I'm not mistaken, so does a large portion, if not a majority of America. The current system now is fucked up. I'm not saying we have to have what they have in Europe with the working population paying half their paychecks to provide for the rest, but there has to be a middle ground where we can ensure that children get care.
I don't believe your suggestion that Obama does not have a history of working well across the aisle, and while Bush does say he would like to bridge the gap, he sure seems to dismiss everything that has come out of the mouths of the Iraq Study group and the suggestions from the congressional leaders he met with. I'm not faulting him for his position, but I am faulting him for the hostility in the administration's dealings with the Democrats (the Democrat majority; the party of cut and run). He also does nothing to rein in the more volatile comments of Cheney and Rove (and yes, I think Obama should have disavowed Geffen's remarks).
A lot of people call Edwards an "ambulance chaser" because he was a trial attourney without actually taking a look at the cases that he took on. Aggregious malpractice lawsuits are part of the reason the cost of healthcare is high, but that is only a small part of the picture. The answer is not to do away with malpractice law - there is a good reason those laws exist in the first place. If the same people pushing for tort reform really wanted to do something about skyrocketing medical care, they could explain to the voters why the government can't negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies over the price of pills.
Guiliani is known for his moderate positions on social views, but I would be hard-pressed to say that he's the best bet for bi-partisan cooperation. He's a firebrand - he's gotten a lot of good done, I agree, but he's hurt a lot of feelings along the way, to say the least.
I don't mind the occaional challenge to my beliefs, but don't forget to challenge your own wisdom from time to time. If you don't have anything nice to say about any candidate, or nothing bad to say about any, then you're not doing all your research.
Regarding Giuliani: "but he's hurt a lot of feelings along the way, to say the least."
I think that may be the best compliment you could give a candidate. You just said that he gets shit done even if he hurts some peoples feelings. I call that a good thing. No reason to dance a little jig just to put on a show, the point is to get things done. Change always hurts someone, even if it is good change.
Post a Comment