AnimeSuki Forum - View Single Post

Kyuusai · 2008-01-08, 20:14

Before I launch into anything else, I have to say that I am very, VERY tired of people dividing up political parties as though each party were ethically or ideologically homogenous. The primary divides are primarily made up of
a) What demographics the party caters to
b) Emotional attachment and personal networking
c) (hopefully) Policy differences--and we must differentiate between the policy differences of constituents and policy differences of the party leaders.

I am also tired of people not being able to differentiate between the actions of the president and congress. Do NOT blame the president for the actions of congress unless you believe that the president should have taken the step of vetoing and done so knowing that it would likely hurt his ability to work with the (whiny, sobbing babies that that are) members of congress.

And as for integrity in one's personal life and its relevance in public office...
Slice of Life, when you say "a public display of morality", I assume you mean some one who publicly calls for morality rather than some one who just lives moral lives in the public eye. Those who talk a little too loudly about it can often be motivated by a guilt complex that is the consequence of their own wrongdoing, but the world isn't just made up of the immoral and the shouting morality police. There are people who quietly do right and do their best to avoid wrongdoing, and they are the people most fit for office.

One's faithfulness in small private matters is a pretty DARNED good indication of how faithful they will be in larger private matters. Yes, it's a public office, but much of what is done is not up for public scrutiny and there is virtually zero accountability, so voters must be careful. Many countries have had great leaders who had personal failings--after all, NO one is perfect, and the type of person with the drive for politics generally has a sex drive that they're channeling that energy from, meaning if they do mess up it will likely be gossip-drawing (make no mistake, there are LOTS of relevant factors, not just marital fidelity)--but that's luck of the draw. Personal integrity is NOT irrelevant! They're still the same person when they go into the office in the morning. There is no "morality switch", and the political scene is not only morally desensitizing but also carries with it temptations and has little chance for real scrutiny.

I also find it funny that people prioritize "experience" over policy. Strange...

As for my opinions on candidates, forgive me for using US politics definitions for "conservative" and "liberal" rather than being literal. It's just more concise.

I tend to be conservative in the fashion that the typical anti-conservative rhetoric doesn't apply and in ways the more radical right-wingers would label "libertarian". The closest we come to my ideal candidate is the far-off possibility that we find some way to re-animate Ronald Reagan and cure his Alzheimer's.

More seriously, to take a look at the candidates running...

For matters of policy, I just can't vote for any Democrat unless Zell Miller decides to run. For solutions on health care, retirement, welfare, you name it, the Democratic party as a whole seems to take the exact opposite stance I do. Not that the Republican party stance is always my own, but a few is better than none, and some of the most important issues we have (copyright, intellectual property, tax reform) find opinion equally scattered among members of both parties despite stereotypes to the contrary.

If I had to pick a Democrat (out of the ones who seem to have a shot at this point, I mean), it would without question be Obama. His occasionally almost-right-wing statements that seem to show he might show some sense when faced with senseless policy have not been pandering to Republicans, but occasionally gaffes in Democratic company that have earned him some derision (and for that I assume hiss apparent sensibility is at least a little bit sincere). I find his overall social and healthcare policy to be broken and destructive, but I find it FAR less damaging than Hillary "I broke US healthcare in the 90s, now let me finish the job" Clinton. As well, I do not trust Hillary Clinton in the least. Both Clintons and their history of outright lies (and I don't mean surrounding Bill's affair) make George W. Bush and his creative interpretations look like a choir boy singing hymns. They are also the ONLY government officials I've ever heard of whose security personnel vehemently despise them--Hillary in particular, since Bill was at least generally likable (this is what I personally gather from reports from close family members and other trusted friends who have actually spoken with members of of the Clintons' past security staff).

On the Republican side, I want nothing to do with Romney or Giuliani. They really ought to be Democrats, but they find too much success pandering to Republicans. Well, in all fairness, in New York City Giuliani is Republican in a relative sense, and it's worked out pretty well for NYC. Giuliani seems as honest as a career politician can be, but Romney, on the other hand, feels as slick as the bottom of a bacon pan. I can't listen to him without feeling like I need to find some Lava soap to scrub the grease off.

Vexx said it right about Ron Paul: The man is a principled, consistent, libertarian... wingnut. I actually think the US could use a wingnut along his lines of "adhere to the constitution, don't cede state power to the federal government, et cetera, so forth" lines, but I think that he doesn't give credit to the consequences some of his desired changes that require long-term solutions to fix without causing dire problems. If he could be president for just a day, perhaps...

McCain isn't conservative enough for me, but I think he's more respectable than most give him credit for. He plays "the game" of politics too much for my liking, though.

I like Fred Thompson. The man is more knowledgeable on the issues international and domestic, not to mention more sensible, than 99% of people in D.C. I agree with him on most things, and can respect his positions on things I disagree with him on. I am not fond of the fact that he was a lobbyist or that he's sat on the "Council on Foreign Relations" (a Rockefeller think-tank). Now, I don't know that he was an unethical lobbyist or that he agreed with anything that the CFR stands for (as he's said about the CFR, he doesn't have to agree with some one to discuss the issues), but I can't know where he stands on these specific things because he can't talk too loudly about that without burning important bridges. It looks like he's not getting much support, though, so I probably won't have to worry about it.

Which brings me to Huckabee.

Huckabee is not conservative enough for me (although his tolerance and compassion that bugs some more uptight conservatives). Some of his comments really indicate that he doesn't quite have a grasp on how capitalism works on the top-end, but I can understand how some one can make a comment that sounds like ignorance of economics when trying to comment on the social aspects of society. I think he takes flack for being even-handed on immigration, but I don't think he's totally right, either.

A lot of people dislike the fact that he wears his religion on his sleeve. As a person of faith and a minister, I'm personally very scared of some one who'd want to make this nation a theocracy whether they agree with me or not. Fortunately, not every openly religious person desires to do that--after all, how can you expect freedom of religion when you can't afford it to other people? Having known many ministers, I like to think I've picked up on some clues that help me to differentiate between the two sorts. To me, Huckabee seems like the sensible kind. His religion drives him, certainly, but that's not prevented him from being respectful of others with different religious and moral beliefs, nor kept him from being aware that the pendulum of religious discrimination swings both ways.

And even if I don't agree with him on everything, I'm very fond of Huckabee for having a history of flaunting the "party will" and (seemingly, at least) not playing "the game" of politics any more than he has to. He also has a phenomenally clean record during his governorship: The biggest actual smear claim I've read about him were not investigating his death-sentence pardoning closely enough and the reception of an inappropriate gift of... a blanket.

My takes on the some of the issues:
- I don't care what a candidate thought about going into Iraq, I just want the troops home as soon as the Iraqis are able to take care of themselves. No sooner, but no later. Any one calling for an immediate pullout is a lunatic and has no compassion for the future of the Iraqi people.
- The US doesn't need to emulate the UK or Canada's failing healthcare systems, they need to START by rolling back every the federal law which broken the health care system in the past couple of decades and ushered in this abuse. I'm sick of people suggesting that the answer to fixing the abuses is to institutionalize them.
- The answer to "Do you believe in evolution?" is "That is a horrible, misleading, irrelevant question." (Huckabee actually did pretty well when asked this, though he didn't give my answer.)
- The second amendment of the constitution means what it says. Period. If congress doesn't like it, they're free to amend the constitution, but stop pretending that this amendment should be interpreted differently than the others.
- Abortion? Except in extreme circumstances, the woman ALREADY had the "right to choose". Hint: It was before she conceived! The laws covering unborn children and the laws covering those in comas being cared for by family should be the same. Modify either to make it what you will, but let's not have double standards here. But wait, one minute--why is this being discussed at the federal level? That's right, like anything regarding evolution, this matter should never be something the president has to worry about. Why? On to my next point...
- Any power not constitutionally assigned to the federal government belongs TO THE STATES. Abortion law, civil unions, drugs, what have you is NOT the realm of federal law. The federal government's power and funding beyond constitutional mandates MUST be returned the states. (Only Ron Paul gets this right. Huckabee and Thompson don't do too badly, though.)

Ron Paul being a wingnut and Thompson not likely to have the support he needs, Huckabee is the best choice I see.

2008-01-08, 20:14	Link #66
Kyuusai 9wiki Scanlator Join Date: May 2006 Location: State of Denial	Before I launch into anything else, I have to say that I am very, VERY tired of people dividing up political parties as though each party were ethically or ideologically homogenous. The primary divides are primarily made up of a) What demographics the party caters to b) Emotional attachment and personal networking c) (hopefully) Policy differences--and we must differentiate between the policy differences of constituents and policy differences of the party leaders. I am also tired of people not being able to differentiate between the actions of the president and congress. Do NOT blame the president for the actions of congress unless you believe that the president should have taken the step of vetoing and done so knowing that it would likely hurt his ability to work with the (whiny, sobbing babies that that are) members of congress. And as for integrity in one's personal life and its relevance in public office... Slice of Life, when you say "a public display of morality", I assume you mean some one who publicly calls for morality rather than some one who just lives moral lives in the public eye. Those who talk a little too loudly about it can often be motivated by a guilt complex that is the consequence of their own wrongdoing, but the world isn't just made up of the immoral and the shouting morality police. There are people who quietly do right and do their best to avoid wrongdoing, and they are the people most fit for office. One's faithfulness in small private matters is a pretty DARNED good indication of how faithful they will be in larger private matters. Yes, it's a public office, but much of what is done is not up for public scrutiny and there is virtually zero accountability, so voters must be careful. Many countries have had great leaders who had personal failings--after all, NO one is perfect, and the type of person with the drive for politics generally has a sex drive that they're channeling that energy from, meaning if they do mess up it will likely be gossip-drawing (make no mistake, there are LOTS of relevant factors, not just marital fidelity)--but that's luck of the draw. Personal integrity is NOT irrelevant! They're still the same person when they go into the office in the morning. There is no "morality switch", and the political scene is not only morally desensitizing but also carries with it temptations and has little chance for real scrutiny. I also find it funny that people prioritize "experience" over policy. Strange... As for my opinions on candidates, forgive me for using US politics definitions for "conservative" and "liberal" rather than being literal. It's just more concise. I tend to be conservative in the fashion that the typical anti-conservative rhetoric doesn't apply and in ways the more radical right-wingers would label "libertarian". The closest we come to my ideal candidate is the far-off possibility that we find some way to re-animate Ronald Reagan and cure his Alzheimer's. More seriously, to take a look at the candidates running... For matters of policy, I just can't vote for any Democrat unless Zell Miller decides to run. For solutions on health care, retirement, welfare, you name it, the Democratic party as a whole seems to take the exact opposite stance I do. Not that the Republican party stance is always my own, but a few is better than none, and some of the most important issues we have (copyright, intellectual property, tax reform) find opinion equally scattered among members of both parties despite stereotypes to the contrary. If I had to pick a Democrat (out of the ones who seem to have a shot at this point, I mean), it would without question be Obama. His occasionally almost-right-wing statements that seem to show he might show some sense when faced with senseless policy have not been pandering to Republicans, but occasionally gaffes in Democratic company that have earned him some derision (and for that I assume hiss apparent sensibility is at least a little bit sincere). I find his overall social and healthcare policy to be broken and destructive, but I find it FAR less damaging than Hillary "I broke US healthcare in the 90s, now let me finish the job" Clinton. As well, I do not trust Hillary Clinton in the least. Both Clintons and their history of outright lies (and I don't mean surrounding Bill's affair) make George W. Bush and his creative interpretations look like a choir boy singing hymns. They are also the ONLY government officials I've ever heard of whose security personnel vehemently despise them--Hillary in particular, since Bill was at least generally likable (this is what I personally gather from reports from close family members and other trusted friends who have actually spoken with members of of the Clintons' past security staff). On the Republican side, I want nothing to do with Romney or Giuliani. They really ought to be Democrats, but they find too much success pandering to Republicans. Well, in all fairness, in New York City Giuliani is Republican in a relative sense, and it's worked out pretty well for NYC. Giuliani seems as honest as a career politician can be, but Romney, on the other hand, feels as slick as the bottom of a bacon pan. I can't listen to him without feeling like I need to find some Lava soap to scrub the grease off. Vexx said it right about Ron Paul: The man is a principled, consistent, libertarian... wingnut. I actually think the US could use a wingnut along his lines of "adhere to the constitution, don't cede state power to the federal government, et cetera, so forth" lines, but I think that he doesn't give credit to the consequences some of his desired changes that require long-term solutions to fix without causing dire problems. If he could be president for just a day, perhaps... McCain isn't conservative enough for me, but I think he's more respectable than most give him credit for. He plays "the game" of politics too much for my liking, though. I like Fred Thompson. The man is more knowledgeable on the issues international and domestic, not to mention more sensible, than 99% of people in D.C. I agree with him on most things, and can respect his positions on things I disagree with him on. I am not fond of the fact that he was a lobbyist or that he's sat on the "Council on Foreign Relations" (a Rockefeller think-tank). Now, I don't know that he was an unethical lobbyist or that he agreed with anything that the CFR stands for (as he's said about the CFR, he doesn't have to agree with some one to discuss the issues), but I can't know where he stands on these specific things because he can't talk too loudly about that without burning important bridges. It looks like he's not getting much support, though, so I probably won't have to worry about it. Which brings me to Huckabee. Huckabee is not conservative enough for me (although his tolerance and compassion that bugs some more uptight conservatives). Some of his comments really indicate that he doesn't quite have a grasp on how capitalism works on the top-end, but I can understand how some one can make a comment that sounds like ignorance of economics when trying to comment on the social aspects of society. I think he takes flack for being even-handed on immigration, but I don't think he's totally right, either. A lot of people dislike the fact that he wears his religion on his sleeve. As a person of faith and a minister, I'm personally very scared of some one who'd want to make this nation a theocracy whether they agree with me or not. Fortunately, not every openly religious person desires to do that--after all, how can you expect freedom of religion when you can't afford it to other people? Having known many ministers, I like to think I've picked up on some clues that help me to differentiate between the two sorts. To me, Huckabee seems like the sensible kind. His religion drives him, certainly, but that's not prevented him from being respectful of others with different religious and moral beliefs, nor kept him from being aware that the pendulum of religious discrimination swings both ways. And even if I don't agree with him on everything, I'm very fond of Huckabee for having a history of flaunting the "party will" and (seemingly, at least) not playing "the game" of politics any more than he has to. He also has a phenomenally clean record during his governorship: The biggest actual smear claim I've read about him were not investigating his death-sentence pardoning closely enough and the reception of an inappropriate gift of... a blanket. My takes on the some of the issues: - I don't care what a candidate thought about going into Iraq, I just want the troops home as soon as the Iraqis are able to take care of themselves. No sooner, but no later. Any one calling for an immediate pullout is a lunatic and has no compassion for the future of the Iraqi people. - The US doesn't need to emulate the UK or Canada's failing healthcare systems, they need to START by rolling back every the federal law which broken the health care system in the past couple of decades and ushered in this abuse. I'm sick of people suggesting that the answer to fixing the abuses is to institutionalize them. - The answer to "Do you believe in evolution?" is "That is a horrible, misleading, irrelevant question." (Huckabee actually did pretty well when asked this, though he didn't give my answer.) - The second amendment of the constitution means what it says. Period. If congress doesn't like it, they're free to amend the constitution, but stop pretending that this amendment should be interpreted differently than the others. - Abortion? Except in extreme circumstances, the woman ALREADY had the "right to choose". Hint: It was before she conceived! The laws covering unborn children and the laws covering those in comas being cared for by family should be the same. Modify either to make it what you will, but let's not have double standards here. But wait, one minute--why is this being discussed at the federal level? That's right, like anything regarding evolution, this matter should never be something the president has to worry about. Why? On to my next point... - Any power not constitutionally assigned to the federal government belongs TO THE STATES. Abortion law, civil unions, drugs, what have you is NOT the realm of federal law. The federal government's power and funding beyond constitutional mandates MUST be returned the states. (Only Ron Paul gets this right. Huckabee and Thompson don't do too badly, though.) Ron Paul being a wingnut and Thompson not likely to have the support he needs, Huckabee is the best choice I see. __________________ I await patiently the gift promised to me.