Let’s look at the Pro’s and Con’s of the candidates from the debate at Durham University in New Hampshire last night:
Mitt Romney
Things I liked: Took a more practical approach to the illegal immigration debate by not supporting the multi-billion dollar waste for a fence between Texas and Mexico.
Things I didn’t like: Wants to reduce federal funding for cities that are not tough on illegal immigration. Shouldn’t more money be given to those cities’s that need more help with solving the immigration problem? Maybe these cities cannot be tough on immigration because they don’t have the human-power or the money to be tough. Taking federal funding away from those cities certainly doesn’t help. Also wants to overturn R v. W and eventually make abortions illegal in all the United States. Not enough space here to explain why I disagree with that.
Mike Huckabee
Mitt Romney
Things I liked: Took a more practical approach to the illegal immigration debate by not supporting the multi-billion dollar waste for a fence between Texas and Mexico.
Things I didn’t like: Wants to reduce federal funding for cities that are not tough on illegal immigration. Shouldn’t more money be given to those cities’s that need more help with solving the immigration problem? Maybe these cities cannot be tough on immigration because they don’t have the human-power or the money to be tough. Taking federal funding away from those cities certainly doesn’t help. Also wants to overturn R v. W and eventually make abortions illegal in all the United States. Not enough space here to explain why I disagree with that.
Mike Huckabee
Things I liked: Said he was unhappy with the many conservatives whose anger against illegal aliens is rooted in racism. I completely agree with this statement. If illegal immigrants where from the United Kingdom, I think many would have a completely different opinion (even if the crime rate among illegal’s was exactly the same). I also like that Gov. Huckabee referenced the “honor” that should be attributed to Sen. McCain.
Things I didn’t like: Completely disagree with his proposed “Human Life Amendment.” He also supports continuing the troop surge to Iraq despite National Intelligence Estimates that show it would be a negative for the efforts in the Middle East…Ya, there’s a good leader – ignore the national intelligence statistics and get more Americans killed.
John McCain
Things I liked: One, he is looking at some sort of “Temporary Workers Program;” he even went to the extreme of saying he was “proud” of illegal immigrants that serve in the military despite the status of their citizenship. Two, I’ve always agreed with McCain’s position on torture. The only people supporting torture as a method of gaining information are those who have no experience in the situation. Someone like McCain and Colin Powell have first hand experience with torture. There again really isn’t enough space for me to fully explain my position, but personally I am morally opposed to torture.
Things I didn’t like: He didn’t really explain how he was going to secure the boarders. The main point, however, that I totally disagreed with was his stance on the Iraq War. According to McCain, Bush’s troop surge in Iraq is working and it is a good strategy. This is in complete conflict with the Government Accountability Office (G.A.O.) who, as of September 5th, ranked 10 benchmarks for Iraq as being “not met,” 4 benchmarks as “partially met,” and 3 benchmarks as “met.” How is a troop surge working when the G.A.O. and internal military affair organizations continue to publish statistics showing otherwise? It is clear McCain is trying to backtrack and rebuild his severed relationship with the base of the party, but even party faithful are jumping ship on the war issue.
Sam Brownback
Things I liked: Nothing, elect him and the United States of America will become the United Stated of Kansas. Nothing against Kansas (I’ve never been there) but God help us all if their laws are applied to the whole nation.
Things I didn’t like: First off, he said Sen. Craig has taken responsibility. Larry Craig has in no way taking responsibility for his actions. His resignation would be forced due to public outcry from GOP leadership, not because he admitted to acting inappropriately. Brownback also supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. I still do not understand how this is even a constitutional matter. How can anyone in the United States invoke the “sanctity of marriage” argument when the divorce rate of the US continues to climb? He also considers gay marriage to be a “social experiment.” This may be true, but how was integration between whites and blacks in the 50’s not a “social experiment”? If he doesn’t support same-sex marriage solely on the basis that it would be a “social experiment” then he would most likely oppose the “social experiment” of desegregation. Those people were called racists. The same way Sen. Brownback is, in essence, a “racist” against gays.
Duncan Hunter
Things I liked: Nothing
Things I didn’t like: He wants to spend millions of dollars completing a 854 mile long fence between Texas and Mexico. When high positioned Texas officials working on the fence published a report proving that the fence would be impractical and a waste of taxpayer’s money, he responded by saying “it’s the law.” Keep in mind that this fence will not continue the whole length of the United States/Mexico boarder. His strong support of prisons such as Gitmo also alarms me as someone who believes that the constitution should apply in all instances.
Tom Tancredo
Things I liked: He accused his fellow Republican candidates for “going with the wind” on important decisions.
Things I didn’t like: Well, to start he said that he would respond to a terrorist attack on US soil by bombing Mecca and Medina. This is absolutely the most absurd statement I have ever heard out of a presidential candidate. Not only is this Saudi Arabia (not Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Iran) it honestly could lead to Armageddon. I honestly don’t feel like wasting my time typing why this would be kind of a bad idea. He also does not feel that US involvement in Middle East affairs had anything to do with 9/11. This is almost as stupid as saying the US was attacked because terrorists “hate freedom.” I’ll further explain my opinion on this issue under the Ron Paul segment. Having this guy in office would be outright dangerous for the United States. I’m shocked he actually is pulling some percentage of the vote…he belongs in a loony bin.
Rudy Giuliani
Things I liked: He is very moderate on the immigration debate. He did a great job on solving New York City’s immigration issues; especially crime. I also really liked his response to Fred Thompson’s criticism regarding NYC gun control laws. After the Virginia Tech massacre, Thompson proclaimed that students at colleges should be allowed to carry guns for protection. That may work in Wyoming, but it would certainly backfire in a city like New York. When Giuliani’s family life was questioned (regarding his three wives) he responded by admitting that he’s made mistakes in his personal life and then gave a laundry list of examples showing that his personal life never interfered with his public life and ability to strengthen NYC. That was a great way to handle the question. It is clear that Giuliani did a great job as Mayor of New York regardless of his personal life - therefore, if he is the best candidate for the job among Republicans, his personal life should be irrelevant. I also don’t understand why so many people are saying he shouldn’t be “running on 9/11.” Certainly it’s an issue with the campaign – however, he is also running on lowering taxes 23 times in the city, drastically decreasing crime, passing the budget, cleaning up the subway system, and drastically improving the welfare system. These are all pros he accomplished while the executive of US’ most famous city.
Things I didn’t like: I don’t like the idea of having special “ID cards” for immigrants, before and after they become citizens. The whole concept is very 1984ish. It also relegates immigrants to a different class of citizenship. Could you imagine if all women had to carry around special ID cards that men didn’t just because they were a woman? Another thing I don’t like is his war strategy. Its time to get out…plain and simple. A Giuliani presidency would have us in Iraq for the next 4-8 years. He is also dead wrong when it comes to giving the reason for the 9/11 attack. Whenever Rep. Paul talks about how 9/11 was partially caused by the US’ involvement overseas, steam starts to bellow out of Rudy’s ears as he states “how dare you say that the United States is somehow partially responsible for September 11th,” when in actuality Ron Paul is dead right.
Ron Paul
Things I liked: His plan for the War in Iraq. He is the only Republican candidate who supports a full withdraw. I don’t necessarily agree that the United States should be strict isolationists, however, his comments regarding September 11th are true. We were not attacked on 9/11 because terrorists hate freedom; we were attacked for political purposes and jealousy. Throughout history terrorism has been used as a means of political action. This was no different on 9/11. The United States’ involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, especially Israel-Palestine, was one of the reasons for 9/11. The other reason was out of jealousy. Capitalist countries of the west have left the Arab nations behind due to their refusal to accept things that are not true Islam (according to radical Muslims). Rep. Paul is 100% correct in his statements and I am pleased that he does not back down despite the boo’s. Iraq is a lost cause – its time to get out and Ron Paul knows that.
Things I didn’t like: Ron Paul’s social policies. He is very pro-life, against gay marriage, anti-progressive taxation, and generally conservative regarding all social issues.
There’s my rundown of all the candidates that took part in last night’s debate. I plan on making another post regarding the debate later on today.
-tg
5 comments:
I appreciate the debate recap, as I didn't get a chance to watch this one.
I have a couple of points to dispute, of course, otherwise this wouldn't be any fun!
You said you didn't understand why people feel Giuliani shouldn't be running on 9/11. Well, I can think of a couple of reasons. First, Giuliani seems to be constantly invoking 9/11 to scare the American people into supporting the Bush administration's aggressive (and I believe reckless) foreign policy. Second, I don't see why Giuliani is given so much credit for his leadership on 9/11. Maybe he did a good job as a calming influence on the city, but it's hard to take him seriously when he basically claims that he is the best candidate to handle our national security due to his experiences on 9/11. As Mayor of NYC, he did not have a role in the U.S. policies to strike back against Al Qaeda and wage the war on terror. In fact, you could make a claim that he, along with Mitt Romney and MIke Huckabee, has the least experience in terms of national security issues, as none of the 3 have ever served in Congress, as opposed to the other 14 major candidates running for president.
Furthermore, you seemed to give Giuliani a lot of credit for his economic and crime policies as Mayor of NYC. At one point, he did in fact pass a balanced budget, leading to a surplus. However, it is important to note that he inherited a $2.3 billion defict from his predecessor, David Dinkins, and left a $4.8 billion deficit for his successor, Michael Bloomberg. Also, crime did drop dramatically during Giuliani's mayoralty, but experts are not sure whether his policies (referred to as the "Broken Windows" theory) are responsible for the decline. There are many other explanations for the crime decline. I'll mention one particularly interesting one, raised in the book Freakonomics. Abortion was legalized in the early 1970s. Since most crimes are committed by males ages 16-24 who grow up in poverty, many of the "would-be criminals" were never born due to abortion, leading to the crime drop in the 1990s, a generation after the legalization of abortion. In defense of Giuliani, though, I think (from reading the debate transcript) his ID Card would apply only to foreign visitors, not naturalized immigrants.
You said where you disagree with Ron Paul is that he is generally conservative on social issues. I don't really think that is the case. Paul is known of a libertarian, and libertarians are usually somewhat liberal on social issues. With regards to Paul, he is pro-life, but he thinks the abortion issue should be left to the states. This is in contrast to some other Republican candidates (Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee) who seem to desire a constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide. In addition, Paul personally opposes gay marriage, but believes that the issue should be left to the states, so he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. In fact, this is the same position held by the 3 Democratic frontrunners: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
The things I can't stand about Ron Paul are generally everything else, specifically his economic and foreign policies. He is extraordinarily conservative on economic issues. For example, he votes against almost any bill related to government spending, including voting against giving the Congressional Gold Medal to people such as Mother Teresa, Rosa Parks, and Pope John Paul II. More broadly, he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the income tax, and most Cabinet departments. As you mentioned, on foreign policy issues, he is very isolationist, a position I strongly disagree with. I do strongly agree with his prinicpled position on the war in Iraq, but there are other foreign policy issues where I think his views are absurd. For example, he does not believe the U.S. should intervene in the genocide in Darfur. As a matter of fact, he was the only Congressman to vote against the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, which was a form of economic sanctions against Sudan (the vote was 418-1). I consider Paul's vote absolutely reprehensible.
On a side note, I have a couple of questions for you:
Mike Huckabee stated he wants to pass a Human Life Amendment:
"I would love to see us have in this country what I helped lead in our state in Arkansas, and that's a human life amendment to our state constitution, Amendment 65, that says that we believe life begins at conception, and that we ought to do everything in the world possible to protect it until its natural conclusion."
So my question for you is do you think such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in addition to obviously banning abortion, would also ban other policies such as euthanasia or the death penalty? This confused me, because Huckabee supported the death penalty as Governor of Arkansas.
And one more question. Do you think it is dishonest for McCain to say he would never support torture when you and I both agree that he would use torture to obtain information from a terrorist if it could avert an imminent terrorist attack?
This is a little off topic, but similarly, do you think it is dishonest for Kucinich to say he wouldn't assassinate Osama bin Laden if he really would take such an action as president? (I guess the main difference between the two is that no one would probably know if McCain ordered a terrorist to be tortured, whereas everyone would probably find out if Osama bin Laden was killed in a U.S. air strike.)
Wow, this was an incredibly long post. Hope you don't get too bored reading it.
You say that Giuliani is using 9/11 to scare people into supporting him. I do not see it as much as Giuliani "using 9/11" to support an agenda, but more so to display his ability to lead in a time of crisis (which is perfectly acceptable.) I do not think he is the best candidate to handle national security problems but has proven that he would not drop the ball given another crisis (the way Bush did during Katrina.) I see where you can be gaining this confusion because his campaign is not doing a good job explaining the position on evoking 9/11 clearly...Giuliani should hire me to run his campaign!
Can not really argue with you regarding his involvement in cleaning up the city. Certainly it was not "all" Giuliani, however, as the executive in a major city when things go sour he has to take the blame...I do not think it is wrong for him to also take responsibility when things go well...that’s just the political game.
On Ron Paul: I kind of rushed the post to get it up as quickly after the debate as possible...as a result I did not explain the Ron Paul stance as thoroughly as I should. You are correct - he is a libertarian. He is also religious. As a libertarian he does not believe in drug laws, however other private life decisions (such as abortion) he is conservative. It would appear that libertarians should be pro-choice because the government has no right to interfere with a woman’s personal life style, yet Paul has a pro-life voting record and seems to be conservative on these sorts of "touchy" issues. That was the main point, but I did not do a great job articulating it in my original post.
I think we both agree against isolationism. His Sudan vote was pretty absurd. Overall I think he is a bit of a nutcase...but I fully agree with his stance on the Iraq War and love the fact that he isn't backing down from Giuliani’s rhetoric during the debates.
To answer your question regarding Huckabee's stance on abortion versus the death penalty: The guy baths in his own hypocrisy. Like most other Republicans, he is a complete hypocrite regarding this issue.
Regarding the Kucinich question: I do not know yet. I have a meeting with the campaign next week. There will never be a candidate that I agree with 100%. This is one of those things (along with Free Trade) that I may not agree with him on. I say this because I have a feeling Kucinich genuinely would not take action against Bin Laden. Nonetheless, Bush is the one to blame for not having Bin Laden over any future president. I'll let you know what campaign headquarters tell me though.
-tg
Has Giuliani proven that he would not drop the ball during a crisis, the way Bush did with Katrina? I'm not so sure.
Bush is criticized for his appointment of Michael Brown as the Director of FEMA. Does Giuliani have better judgment in terms of appointments? Well, Giuliani's police commissioner was Bernie Kerik, and he later recommended Kerik to President Bush to be nominated as Secretary of Homeland Security. Let's just say that Kerik's character isn't perfect. Kerik has employed illegal immigrants, been sued for sexual harassment, had an affair, been linked with organized crime (which Giuliani was briefed on in 2000, prior to appointing Kerik as police commissioner), pled guilty to ethics violations, and is being investigated for tax evasion and illegal eavesdropping. Oh, and he was also appointed the Interim Minister of Interior in Iraq. That didn't turn out so well. In the book Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq, journalist George Packer reports:
"He [Army Lt. Colonel in charge of Kirkuk reconstruction] was afraid that the new Kirkuk police force, which the battalion he commanded had already set up, would have to be scrapped when Bernard Kerik - the colorful former New York police chief - finally got around to announcing his national plan. Instead, Kerik spent his time in Baghdad going on raids with South African mercenaries while his house in New Jersey underwent renovation. He went home after just three months, leaving almost nothing behind, while the Lt. Colonel spent almost a year in Kirkuk."
Bush was also criticized for being inadequately prepared to deal with the failure of the levees, despite having being warned beforehand that it was a grave concern by the Director of the National Hurricane Center. Did Giuliani really fare much better on 9/11? Firefighters' radios that had been found to be faulty in 1994 had still not been adequately replaced. As a result of this incompetence, 343 firefighters were not able to hear an evacuation order, leading to their deaths. The largest American firefighters' union, the International Association of Fire Fighters, has accused Giuliani of "egregious acts" against the 343 firefighters. Giuliani has also been heavily criticized for maintaining that the air quality was safe following the attacks, when in fact it contained large amounts of asbestos and was very dangerous to the rescue workers (remember in Sicko, how the 9/11 rescue workers Michael Moore took to Cuba had respiratory problems?).
The more I think about 9/11, the more I realize that Giuliani did absolutely nothing to be deserving of the heroic status he has attained from that horrible day. I think Al Sharpton said it best: "You didn't bring us together, our pain brought us together and our decency brought us together. We would have come together if Bozo was the mayor."
I understand Giuliani is a politician and I don't mind him taking credit for the dramatic reduction in crime in NYC during his tenure, but I thought you should be more reluctant to give him that credit considering all the other relevant factors.
Regarding Mike Huckabee, I'm not sure he's a complete hypocrite. I guess he could make some sort of argument that human beings begin life at conception and government has a responsibility to protect their lives unless they forfeit their right to life by committing a heinous crime such as murder. This argument would justify the death penalty, although I don't agree with it in the slightest. I'm just wondering what affect his proposed Human Life Amendment would have on the death penalty or euthanasia, since it says nothing about those issues.
And finally, you forgot to mention one other issue where you disagree with Kucinich--his unconstitutional proposal to ban handguns :)
I think you may be missing what I am saying. I agree that Giuliani has not made some of the best appointments during his tenure as Mayor, but that was not what I was talking about.
When referencing his leadership I was referring to his actions after 9/11, not leading up to or during. The problems of communication between emergency service units, and other breakdowns on the day of the attack undoubtedly posed difficulties in maintaining order. When I speak of his leadership it is not saying he did a good job preparing for that catastrophe or the crisis as it was happening. Rather, I am talking about his ability, mostly fiscally, to clean up the aftermath and get the city back on its feet. If you remember correctly there was a good seven days where the city was completely shut down. The fact Giuliani was able to get the city back in functioning order as quickly as he did can only be testament to his leadership qualities. Certainly he was not the one calling all the shots in the clean-up, but he was the one responsible for overseeing the project. The mere fact that NYC is already out of the red (regarding the impact on the State's Budget) is incredible.
He may not be deserving of "heroic status" for actions on 9/ll, but he certainly deserves credit for the expediency of the rebuilding effort. As far as workers health care matters go - he can only do so much as the head of city. It really comes down to the Federal Government as explained in Sicko. What was that bill Moore was endorsing during Sicko?...oh ya! HR676 a Kucinich Bill; what do ya know :)
Your point on Huckabee would be acceptable if that was what he really believed. The rationale of supporting the Death Penalty while remaining Pro-life due to the "consequences of action" justification is the most popularly used among some-what intelligent Republicans (though as you mentioned - logically flawed). Huckabee, however, continually invokes the sentiment of his religious belief for "protecting life" and uses the Bible for the foundation of his argument. This is the hypocritical portion of his stance. I'm not going to write them here for the sake of space and time, but there are many instances where Jesus' comments clearly show he would oppose putting someone to death. This is only my opinion, but I have a feeling he would be starchy against euthanasia.
In closing, Kucinich's handgun legislation may not "technically" be unconstitutional, but I will admit it is kind of dopey.
-tg
Was Giuliani responsible for getting the city back on its feet only seven days after 9/11? That's a difficult question. It's understandable to say he played a part, but I personally would give more credit to the incredible resilience of the people of NYC.
Giuliani's fiscal policies have nothing to do with NYC's recent surplus. The balanced budget was mainly the result of a $3 billion tax increase by Michael Bloomberg.
I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying about Giuliani and the workers' health effects. I wasn't talking about the failure to get the workers the proper health care. Rather, I was referring to Giuliani maintaining that the air quality was safe while in fact it wasn't, leading to the health problems of the rescue workers. In fact, there is evidence that Giuliani actually stopped efforts to protect the rescue workers. Former head of the EPA Christie Whitman said that she urged Ground Zero workers to wear respiratory workers, but Giuliani blocked her efforts. Furthermore, she said that city officials didn't want EPA officials wearing haz-mat suits because they didn't want an image of the city falling apart.
I thought the Bible sanctioned the death penalty, but I know very little about the Bible and Christianity in general. If you could provide some more information on how Jesus was against the death penalty, I would greatly appreciate it.
So Kucinich's proposal to ban handguns isn't unconstitutional? I guess when the Framers wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they were talking about bows and arrows :)
Post a Comment