Why should I vote for your Presidential candidate?

Great Debates
1

As an undecided Democrat-leaning first-time voter (with a primary on February 3rd, 2004). I could be like others, and just go with the front-runner, being Howard Dean. The candidate selector says Dean or Kuchinich (note: this does not mean I am insane)

This is the selector I am referring to - http://selectsmart.com/president/

Here’s some of the stuff I have checked on that page

  • Regardless of increases or decreases, it is vitally important that federal spending and taxes are balanced

[At the very least, balance is good. The fact that Bush has raised spending and all that sorta says a bit. There has to be a way to reduce spending and make it work too.]

Federally funded social services and poverty aid should be delivered through religious, community-based, or other non-profit organizations. These Bush administration developed legislative proposals are commonly referred to as the “faith-based initiative.” - Disagree

[Noooope… not a shot there. The idea doesn’t fly with me]

Federal funding of welfare and assistance to unemployed and under-employed individuals and families - No preference/None of the above/Prefer alternate solutions.

[I’m not quite in support of increasing it. First off, has it been decreased lately? or is this a matter of wanting more?]

Federal funding of “corporate welfare”, which has been defined as “special government subsidies or benefits that are targeted to specific industries or businesses” - Should be decreased

[Lets face it, the whole idea of welfare to corporations just doesn’t seem right to me. Maybe this isn’t really the grounds for the government, considering there are times that gov’t just doesn’t work]

SECURITY & TERRORISM Since 9-11 the issues of civil rights and liberties have come into conflict with issues of security - America should adopt stricter standards for international student visas.

[The visas part is the only feasible part. Mail-reading is too much of an invitation for privacy invasion and civilian trials isn’t the end-all be-all solution when it comes to trying terrorists]

Foreign Affairs - It is bad policy for the US to attack an enemy nation pre-emptively

[It is bad policy to pre-emptively attack because the facts of the matter in Iraq with the “WMDs” and such suggest that the reasons for action, such as Iraq being a threat were lies. As well, supporting a Palestinean state is not workable because the Palestineans have failed numerous times when it comes to peace. A Palestinean state would fail because there is no assurance that it wouldn’t want to wipe out the Israeli state. Also, the US would intervene in some things. Merely using isolation wouldn’t work either.]

Education - Support tax incentives and/or increased federal funding of programs such as grants and loans to help students attend college

[Increasing funding won’t work, making sure the funding is spent correctly may work. But the fact of the matter is that some students do not prosper under the enviroment of school and all the money in the world won’t change that.]

Health Care - Support the concept of federally funded national healthcare coverage for all or most Americans. Prohibit cloning of human embryos

[Remember, it says concept. The concept is a good one. There are costs that can be covered and should be covered. People should still have to pay for some medical things though. Cloning doesn’t exactly fly with me either]

Social Security - Support measures to protect Social Security and Medicare

[Allowing for investments is just asking for an ugly situation when stocks go down and people lose their money.]

Laws and penalties regarding illegal drugs such as a narcotics, hallucinogens, etc. - Should be reduced or eliminated

[The War on Drugs has fails. Prohibition on a product is a failure. The punishments have grown excessive as well. I’d prefer reserving more jail-space for violent criminals instead of people who were found with joints.]

On issues of trade with other countries, my ideal candidate would favor the following: - Less restrictive “Free Trade” policies

[To be fair, I’m nowhere near an expert on this. But, I’d prefer something that wouldn’t be too restrictive.]

[The following questions were all loaded with crap. I don’t merely attach myself to organizations. I’m more to the left on guns, I’d prefer people not be irresponsible enough to get pregnant and then go out to get abortions, but I will admit there are times when abortion should be legal. On the enviroment, I’d prefer one that is clean and all that, I’m just not totally on one side or the other when it comes to the LCV. And the NAACP question is one where I can’t find myself on either side. And the ACLU question one is where I agree with their intent, but there are times that they’re sorta out there.]

Regarding the following special interest groups, my ideal candidate will generally support the positions of - No preference/None of the above/Prefer alternate solutions

Regarding the following special interest groups, my ideal candidate will generally support the positions of - No preference/None of the above/Prefer alternate solutions

Regarding the positions of the League of Conservation Voters, my ideal candidate will generally: - No preference/None of the above/Prefer alternate solutions

Regarding the positions of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, my ideal candidate will generally - No preference/None of the above/Prefer alternate solutions

Regarding the positions of the American Civil Liberties Union, my ideal candidate will generally - Share the positions of the ACLU

Just for your curiosity, my latest results were Kucinich (72%), Dean (70%), Green party (66%), Clark (63%), Gephardt (61%) and Sharpton (59%)

So come on supporters of whatever Democratic candidate you like!

Same for the Republicans… sure, I don’t like Bush or anything, but I’m sure you can try.

And Libertarians too!

I’m undecided and there’s a primary coming up. Who wants to try and sway me away from voting for Howard Dean?

2

This question seems more like Great Debate material to me.

3

General Questions is for questions with factual answers.

Off to Great Debates.

DrMatrix - GQ Moderator

4

Gary Nolan-Libertarian through and through.

Why look to the further enslavement of the American populace and the gradual slide into creeping socialism? Vote Nolan.

Responsible foreign policy. End subsidization of despots. Free civil liberties (drugs, Patriot Act). End Social Security.

Yeah its a long shot, but especially with an almost halved Senate. :slight_smile:

5

Yep, or since it is full of it - Rob’s opinion - IMHO

6

Whoops, I see it has been moved.

Thanks for the link Vezer!

7

yeah… move this whereever you feel…

8

Deans’ current positions are to far to the left for most Americans to accept.

If you are willing to accept half of what you want, rather than the certain none if you nominate Dean, consider John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, or Wesley Clark, who can all beat Bush and are all liberal enough to satisfy all but the most illiberal leftist fanatics.

9

I knew I was probably a bit out there when I was paired with Kucinich on that matcher.

Still… one fact is that I am sorta amazed at Dean’s rise, when he entered the race, he sorta seemed a no-name longshot.

10

although… which positions of Dean’s would be too far to the left? the Iraq war stuff?

11

“Dean is too far to the left” is just the current masturbatory fantasy of the Republican Right, and has never been proven with a reliable citation AFAIK.

As for the question, “Why should I vote for your Presidential candidate?”, the easy answer is “because he/she is smarter than the guy we’ve got now” – an answer that applies to anyone you care to name. :wink:

12

**although… which positions of Dean’s would be too far to the left? the Iraq war stuff?

**

Nah. The war was less a left-right issue than most people think.

His calls for re-regulation, his protectionism, his desire to repeal all tax cuts, even for the middle class…

Then there is the presentation of the candidate. Humorless sourpusses rarely win elections. He’s been working on that lately, but all he’s really mastered is sarcasm humor. He just won’t sell to anyone but the true believers.

**“Dean is too far to the left” is just the current masturbatory fantasy of the Republican Right, and has never been proven with a reliable citation AFAIK.
**

What kind of cite do you want? Is there a cite that labels candidates? I would have thought where a candidate stood on the political spectrum would be partially subject to opinion.
As for the question, “Why should I vote for your Presidential candidate?”, the easy answer is “because he/she is smarter than the guy we’ve got now” – an answer that applies to anyone you care to name

Well, if you want smarts, no one holds a candle to Clark. Although there is a lot more to being a good President than brains.

13

if brains elected Presidents… Stevenson would have gotten two terms.

when it comes to tickets, would Clark/Dean work, or would Dean have to be kept away from the ticket?

14

Ah, something I hadn’t thought of…

Dean can become competitive with the right VP choice I guess. And I can’t see Dean hurting anyone if he was VP on someone’s ticket. He’s way off to the left at this point, but that in itself won’t offend voters. It takes a truly whacko wingnut to do that and Dean doesn’t qualify. Stick McDermott on a ticket, and then you’ve got your wild-eyed lefty whacko.

I could be convinced to vote for Dean if he put Bob Graham on as the VP, provided Graham would have a major role in the administration.

15

Vote for Dean. I for one am interested to see just how tiny he is standing next to Bush during the debates. Never mind the fact that his inevitable implosion will probably be a lot of fun to watch!

16

I want Bush gone. But I don’t want to replace him with someone who will raise taxes, give other nations first refusal on our security concerns, and increase regulations. I also don’t want a big spender, but since it would be hard to match the Bush record on spending profligacy, I can’t complain to much about Democrats. Well, I can complain about Dick Gephardt. His spending plans somehow manage to dwarf Bush’s, but he’s the only major candidate with that problem.

17

Well, the test works:

And, rjung, as far as Dean being too far to the left as a “masturbatory fantasy” of the right… It’s folks on the left who have been saying this. Most conservatives I know are hoping Dean gets the nomination, and many liberals are voicing thier concern about him being unable to beat Bush.

18

Dean may not be too far to the left, but he does a really good job of saying and doing things that will allow him to be painted as too far to the left.

Dean was governor when Vermont began civil unions between gays; he has mouthed off about his belief that Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened; he has stated that he wanted Osama bin Laden tried in the World Court; he still adamantly opposes American action in Iraq.

Doesn’t matter what else he believes in- he can be a tax-cutting, social-services cutting, NRA-supporting, Bible-thumping supply sider and he’s still said enough to make himself look like the new George McGovern.

19
  1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
  2. Libertarian Candidate (74%)
  3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (74%)
  4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (35%)

Mwhahaha. Viva la freedom of man.

20

Before 9-11, you needed to show you had:

1- no criminal record
2- that you were academically qualified
3- that you had been accepted at a u.s college/univesity/school
4- that you or your parents had enough money in a bank account to cover your expenses for X amount of years (2-6 usually)
5- miscellaneous stuff. the interviewer tries to determine if you are an immigration risk (and they’re heavy handed. In a guilty til’ proven innocent kind of way.)

If you passed on all 5, You’d get a visa the same day.

After 9-11 you still needed all that but they also had to run some sort of background check which takes them 15 days. (only if you’re a male) and the interviewers got even more heavy handed.

Now , what exactly do you suggest to make this “stricter” ? dice rolling? palm reading?

And what about the terrorists who don’t need a visa to come to the U.S ? How do you plan on stopping those?

I would elaborate further but this isn’t the topic to do so.