View Full Version : Your Vote: Twisted Tongues aren't the issue
10-13-2000, 09:26 AM
Whether it's the ability to correctly pronouce $5 words or never, ever tell "lies", these are NOT criteria for choosing a President of the US. The Boston Globe suggested that voters should not look at who you want to govern during the good times, but rather voters should look at who you want to provide effective leadership during times of trouble. Here below are the questions you should be asking yourself as you decide who to vote for:
1. Who do you want to make decisions regarding our immediate national security when an international crisis occurs? Possible examples: a complete crumbling of the Middle East and specifically Israel/Palestinian political standoff. Another collapse of the Asian market. A genocidal war effecting our access to a vital nature resource. civil war breaking out in the former Soviet Union geopolitical arena.
2. Who do you want to call on when there is a threat to our economic security? Possible examples: increased demand for fossil fuels when production is at its highest level ever. bumps and rolls of the internet stock market slips into heavy rollercoaster riding. increased inflation due to superhot economy. economic or stock market implosion
3. Whose leadership do you want to rely on during a domestic crisis? Possible examples: bioterrorist-caused viral outbreak in a major US city. environmental breakdown.
increasing unemployment rates and increasing numbers of uninsured or underinsured people, in particular women and children.
4. Who do you want to provide public policy leadership? Possible examples: appointment of Supreme Court and Federal judges. how to reduce firearm access which can be used in crime, children and by political extremists. an appropriate discussion on the use of the death penalty and its fair and equal use [or maybe even putting the death penalty on hold. human rights, civil rights. equal quality education appropriate for future years of employment.
In order to make a solid decision on who to vote for, one needs to ignore the political pundits and polls which suggest that the criteria of choosing a President are: the ability to appear cool/calm/collected during a debate, the ability to throw out catch phrases which are supposed to solve complex issues, having a pristine character and no private life.... the list of trivial polling questions go on and on regardless of their usefullness and insight into a person's ability to run our country.
So, since this is the polling arena, what criteria would you use to decide your vote and why? Does this type of analysis help you decide who to vote for?
10-14-2000, 11:35 AM
We have such uninspiring choices.
Where is Ross Perot when we need him?
He was a sham, but he brought the issues to the front line.
He made the other candidates take a stand and be FOR something.
If only Nader had some style, his ideas would spark a real debate. But he likes the role of rumpled writer.
10-14-2000, 03:27 PM
Your questions are very much to the point kiffa. I hope that everyone who reads this carefully balances their election day choice with your observations.
10-14-2000, 07:16 PM
You mean I should base my vote on what the Boston Globe thinks are important questions?
I'd rather base my vote on whether the candidate wears boxers or briefs, and whether he can play a mean sax and appear on MTV.
I agree that leadership ability should be a major consideration.
I think that most people vote without analysing policies. TV campaigns simply concentrate on slogans and soundbites. A couple used here in Britain were 'education, education, education,' and 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'.
Wonderful. Of course :rolleyes: you'll get elected if you DON'T want education, or if you are SOFT on crime. F*ck*ng politicians.
(Sorry about the rant).
While I'm in a grumpy mood:
did Reagan get elected mainly because he was good on TV?
The impression over here was that he didn't understand economics (or much else).
10-15-2000, 10:53 AM
Well definately Gore isint a leader, but id say Bush probably isint either.
10-15-2000, 10:53 AM
Reagan was elected because he looked "presidential", used key words that clicked with alot of people "new dawn in America" ie: change from the pisspoor economic situation and key phrases that folks understood in their personal context ie "balanced budget". He was elected again inspite of the fact that he widened the unbalanced budget/public debt, made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Let's take the phrase "invented the internet": This phrase has been used to paint Gore as egotistical etcetcetc, however if you look at major achievements of the Clinton Administration you will find efforts to enhance, promote and expand the digital age including the internet. Gore played a major role in this including legislative efforts. At least one could say that they did not put ropes around it as many other countries have done. [Joe Klein, New Yorker Mag].
I don't know much about Bush's role in establishing effective Hate Crimes legislation/law in Texas so I can't use that as an example. Anyone who knows about the existing law and the defeated proposed law is cordially invited to post/inform us. Also, I hear alot about improvements in the Texas public education system, but I couldn't tell you exact what Bush did to get there. This is not described in the ads or have I seen them in the press or debates.
These are a couple of examples of why it is necessary to be an informed voter.
10-15-2000, 10:58 AM
Asmodean: well, those are the choices right now. Once again it's an election that will be won on "the lesser of two evils" or "the less than perfect" candidate to vote for.
I presume that Presidential candidates from the two major parties are chosen for their ability to reach the top of that party, rather than for Presidential abilities.
So you have to pander to special interest groups (especially wealthy backers), look good on TV, be a white, married, Christian male, etc. Ideas on how to manage the economy, improve society etc. are irrelevant.
Am I too cynical?
10-15-2000, 02:12 PM
All I know is that neither of the two top guys are great by any stretch of the imagination (and anybody who thinks one of them is "great" really isn't thinking properly :D).
I agree with you, kiffa... this whole election will be on who's the lesser dumbass. I've already chosen which dumbass I'll vote for, but I recognize that it's a choice made under duress.
And, yes, I have asked myself who would be a better president under a crisis... my particular choice, it strikes me, would be more likely to rely on the advice of his cabinet, while the other would take the gung-ho approach and try to fix everything on his lonesome. I'll leave it to your own devices to think about which of the two would take those particular actions.
10-15-2000, 02:21 PM
I wish there was a way to make democracy more proactive to the voters, however it is mostly reactive - let's cater to their current whims, deal on conventional wisdom, let's do xyz to get elected/re-elected. You get re-elected if you don't mess up in a major way; Carter, while a decent man, was crushed by an inability to handle [negotiate/compromise] a solution for a horrible world economy. OTOH, Tyrants generally look for other ways to stay in power - Mobuto, Miloshevic [?sp] the list of hunchmen is endless.
Take a look at your candidate's advisors to get a better idea about how he might make decisions. Who does your man listen to? What are their "credentials" ie: academic like Henry Kissinger or shadowy businessman like Rebozo? It takes work to find the answers - probably why "they" don't want us to know?
10-16-2000, 02:46 PM
Excellent thread topic!
At one point in our counry's history, politicians headed the major parties by way of the states, i.e., the usual wheeling and dealing that took place after several roll call votes at the national convention. IMHO & perception, the current primary season only tends to allow the current candidate that the NATIONAL level guys of each party put their weight behind. Dynasty comes to mind. I have also noted the pains that both of the major parties have used to stifle the chances of any insertion of "Third Parties" at any and all crossroads.
That being said, the American public is being offered the choice between two less than perfect candidates in the upcoming election (3rd party folks, sorry, they don't have a snowballs...). Both men are intelligent. Both have heavy backers.....Gore from the formidable machine headed by Clinton/cronies.....Bush from the influence of his father/cronies.
As a true moderate independent, not agreeing 100% with either side/platform, I was initially torn in indecision, but have put the questions that kiffa asked into the reasons for my final selection. I will vote for Bush because:
As a former Tennessean, I have watched Gore though the years change from a conservative into being much more liberal. His current persona IMHO is that of someone who wets their finger and then shifts idealogy to match the wind of public opinion. That is my definition of an excellent follower, not a leader. Although Bush has some indiscretions in his past, he seems to me to be much more stable in regard to his personal convictions.
Bush appears much more humble and willing to seek common ground to build upon across partisan lines... at least in his years in Texas seem to indicate it. I would also note that Bush has prior business experience...with less than optimal results. However, a former president named Lincoln had several failed endeavors even including bankruptcy on his resume. I believe that failure at times can be a marvelous learning tool. Gore seems to get contentious when he is "right" and opens chasms that I believe will lead to more gridlock.
I believe Bush will appoint a cabinet across ethnic lines and will in fact listen for advise before making hasty decisions (if these will be the same folks paraded at the convention, I approve). Gore will come to power holding heavy political baggage left over from the current C/G administration and given the recent revelations of the state of the books from several major departments, (Agriculture and Education in particular), where outside auditors say millions are missing and unauditable, I fear we will be in for more of the same. I do believe IMHO the Dept of Energy and the Dept of Transportation have both been grossly mismanaged as well.
In one of the recent debates, Bush recommended asking Putin to use his influence regarding the events in Yugoslavia and Gore denigrated that response vigorously. If Gore were really at Clinton's side on every foreign policy decision like he said he was, would he have made so obvious a gaffe?
Last and in my mind the most important, is the appointment of SC justices. I agree with Bush that the high court in recent years seems to have been legislating from the bench rather than upholding the intent of the constitution. IMHO there have been cases that should be decided on a state by state basis rather than empowering more control to the federal level. Read: government minimalist vs government maximalist.
These are the reasons I am for Bush and some of the above merely affirms the the initial conclusion I reached after learning who the two finalists were earlier in the year. As always, opinion only...awaiting the rending and tearing :)
10-16-2000, 03:02 PM
I will vote for the candidate who best addresses my two chief concerns: cutting taxes and legalizing marijuana, not necessarily in that order. I will vote for Browne of the Libertarians. I realize he will not win the election, but I would rather vote for a candidate whose views I support than vote for some zombie simply because it "is the lesser of two evils."
To be honest, I am more interested in some of the local races this election than in Bore vs. Shrub. A county commissioner whom I think has been good for the county faces a stiff challenge, and I really want to vote against the Republican candidate for county surveyor because he tried to screw me over.
10-17-2000, 11:33 AM
Coyote, you make an excellent point. There are so many local issues on the ballot, and most voters only know which of the two candidates from the major parites had the best closing quote. It's sad to say the least. I have heard several commentators on talk radio groaning about the drives the register voters, and voicing the opinion that all this does is get more people who don't know what they are voting for to the poles. I'm beggining to agree with this, we need people who are voting for more than sound bites, regardless of what political party they are affiliated with.
I'm with you, Harry Browne is not much on sound bites, but he does seem to stand for something solid - smaller government, more freedom. Agree or disargee, you know what he's about.
I vote for legal weed, and a smaller tax burden!
10-17-2000, 04:14 PM
Phil-you said Bush suggested asking Putin to use his influence in the former Yugoslavia?
Is that really such a great idea? I mean, don't the Russians generally support Milosevic?
I don't see how the Republicans are any less for big government. What about the idea of restricting abortion rights and putting religion back into school programs?
10-17-2000, 07:39 PM
I just thought it was funny that Gore said Bush's idea was no good while Clinton was doing exactly that :) Like I pointed out, if Gore is SOOOO in tune and lockstep with the president, how could he NOT know that? IMHO the majority of Gore's foreign experience seems to be funerals and hiding secret Russian deals from congress :rolleyes:
Neither abortion rights nor SoCS reversals add anything to the federal system and in fact may actully help decrease in the former. BTW just announced on FOX tonight, Dept of HUD is out $59 billion. Smaller government is forced to be more efficient IMHO. Gore wants to throw money (away) at the problem in hope something sticks. How can he say that government must be accountable when his watch has failed to do so for 8 years?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.