Reasons to vote for each candiate
Published Sunday, September 28, 2008
People who have decided on a candidate are very unlikely to change their position. And a few view folks who are on an opposing side as ignorant, short-sighted and just plain evil. Intelligent arguments can be made for why we ought to vote for either candidate. Sadly, most of what we hear day to day when people talk about politicians are personal insults rather than policy insights.
- 1) Many years of experience as a senator.
- 2) Was a POW and Vietnam War veteran.
- 3) Has a history of reaching across the isle to solve problems.
- 4) Has a history of fighting to reduce pork barrel spending.
- 5) Criticized the use of water-boarding to interrogate POW's.
- 1) Regularly addresses concerns of the American middle class.
- 2) Has mobilized younger voters and citizens formerly uninterested in politics.
- 3)
VotedSpoke out against going to War in Iraq. - 4) Is an inspirational speaker.
- 5) Supports continued funding and expedition of Head Start and other social programs that empower the less fortunate.
I plan to vote for Barack Obama, but only because his values match up with mine. It's as simple as that. Other folks are going to vote for McCain because his values match up with theirs. We all have different ideologies and with good reason.
There is no way on earth I'd want to live in this country if the Democrats were always in control...because they'd become extremely corrupt, just like any party who has been in power for two long.
Many argue that both the Democratic and Republican parties are corrupt because they've both been in power for too long. Power corrupts organizations and individuals alike, which is why grassroots folks, like the people who live in Albert Lea, must vote and make their voices be heard.
I am biased. Everyone is. It's human nature. You can't write or think anything without coming from a particular bias. But let's be respectfully biased.
Comments
Why didn't you talk about Obama's friends or his stance on abortion. You are right you are bias and it shows in your writting. This is why people hate the press. I bet you think the city council is doing a great job too.
I think it is unfortunate when women have abortions and I think we should do what we can to prevent them from happening. I do not, however, agree with a comprehensive ban on abortion. When I worked in inner-city D.C., I heard stories about women who died or where severely injured when trying to give themselves abortions, so I think doctors should have that option, especially in situations where the mother is likely to do it on her own.
I don't know very much about Obama's or McCain's friends, so I didn't write about that. I know that Obama was involved with a rather shady Resko deal and that McCain was one of the Keating Five.
I don't know what my being biased has to do with people hating the press. I'm a blogger, not a reporter or a member of the press. Plus, I don't know very many people, Republicans or Democrats, who full-on hate the press. My brother-in-law is a Republican and he used to be the editor of the Postville Herald-Leader in Postville, Iowa. He doesn't care for the New York Times, but he certainly doesn't hate them. Nor did he hate himself when he was a newspaper editor. And I certainly don't hate him; he's like a brother to me.
I haven't followed decisions of the city council enough to know whether they are doing a great job or not. I am beginning to follow their decisions more and more. I do know that they are elected officials and if we don't like the decisions they're making, we should campaign to put new people in their positions. And if we like what they're doing, we should vote to keep them in office.
" Was a POW and Vietnam War veteran."
The weakest of all reasons listed.
"Many argue that both the Democratic and Republican parties are corrupt because they've both been in power for too long"
One aspect of that corruption, I believe, is the lines of distinction between the two Parties on issues(not ideology) are fading, leading to One Party Democracy, which is not democracy.
The best examples of democracy reside locally. And yet we must be vigilant in identifying locals who are attached to the power elite above.
You can see the liberal underlying intentions of the media. If you put a fact that is not central to why McCain should be president as one of the top reasons, readers pick up on this as a detractor. You don't see his stance on the Environment on the list because this would possibly draw undecided liberal leaning voters who are in the middle. There is a difference between bias and putting more gas in the liberal media machine.
The reason I don't point out McCain's stance on the environment is because because he doesn't address his stance on the environment as a central pillar of his campaign. Why? Because his base doesn't get excited about the environment. Why should the press focus on McCain's stance on the environment if he doesn't. By the way, what is McCain's stance on the environment? Or are you simply leaving out the details because you're part of the liberal media? (I apologize for the sarcasm, but my point is that you're not the liberal media. My claiming that you are because you left out details about McCain's environmentalism is, at best, shortsighted.)
In fact, lately what I know about McCain is that he's telling me Obama 'pals around with terrorists.' And Obama is good buddies with Ayers. From the McCain campaign, I'm hearing more negative stuff about Obama than I am good stuff about McCain. This is not typical of McCain. I don't believe he has a history of negative campaigning. In fact, he was a victim of it when he ran against Bush. I would've thought he'd be less interested in using those methods after being unfairly targeted by negative campaigning in the past.
McCain's stance on the environment
Key Points
* Has said global warming would be one of three key issues for his presidency.
* His cap-and-trade plan for fighting climate change calls for gradual reductions in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions from utilities, transportation fuels, and large businesses, with a target of cutting emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
<img src="http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/01/mccain_factsheet/">Source:</img>
* Cosponsored the first bill in the Senate calling for mandatory reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions, in 2003. The 2007 version, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, is less stringent than many other climate bills currently in Congress. It would cap global-warming emissions from utilities, industry, and transport at 2004 levels by 2012 and then gradually decrease emissions to about 30 percent of 2004 levels by 2050.
* Has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's lack of action against climate change.
* Believes the U.S. should embrace nuclear power as a way to generate energy without directly producing greenhouse-gas emissions. His climate plan would take some of the money raised from auctioning emission allowances and make it available for nuclear power R&D.
* In April 2008, began advocating for a summer "gas-tax holiday" to ease consumer prices at the pump. The proposal would suspend the 18-cent federal gasoline tax and 24-cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day and cost the government some $10 billion.
* Wants to "find a way to use our coal resources without emitting excessive greenhouse gases," and supports public-private partnerships to develop high-tech systems for coal gasification and carbon capture and storage.
* Used to criticize ethanol; now lauds ethanol, but still opposes government subsidies for it.
* Has opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
* Has been endorsed by Republicans for Environmental Protection for his climate policies.
voted against going to war? He was not in office yet.
Allake, good clarification. He merely spoke out against going to war in Iraq. He was not a US senator at the time, so there was no way he could have voted against it. Looks like I need to edit my list.
Post a comment