Monday, September 13, 2004

Be a Political Pundit

Believe it or not, I am actually one of those scant few people who is still rather undecided in the upcoming presidential election. So if you would like please tell me why I should vote for the particular canidate you support, but before you start telling me why Bush sucks, here are my current thoughts on both canidates:

I have major issues with Bush. Specifically 1. The Patriot act, I don't think that the gradual raping of civil liberties is necessary for national security. 2. Financially unresponsible. Say what you may about Clinton and the Republican revolution, but they did balance the budget and I think that is a very, very good thing. However, in less than two years President Bush went from a budget surplus to the biggest debt in history. Yes, I know part of that can be blamed on a lagging economy, but still Bush does bare some of the blame. 3. Vodoo economics. Reganomics do not work, when money trickles down it never ever, ever reaches the bottom. You can go right ahead and tell me I am wrong about this, and we will just agree to disagree but Bush's tax policy sucks bloated monkey butt. 4. Iraq-Yes, I did (and do) feel like it was a good idea to invade Iraq, however from the beginning I thought we should do it because it was the right thing to do, not because of national security. I feel that Bush, wether intentionally or unintentionally mislead the country by overinflating the danger of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Also, I believed him when he stated that his administration had very clear exit strategies for leaving Iraq, which is becoming apparent they do not.

So at this point, you are probably thinking I am a shoe-in for Kerry, but that is not so I do have some problems with him as well, and those mainly morality problems. The biggest one I have is with his stance of gay marriage. Kerry supports legal civil unions. The sanctity of marriage is something I feel VERY strongly about and with a number of states having constitutional ammendments on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage, this will become a big supreme court issue in the next four years. Having a president in office like Bush would help make sure that the sancity of marriage is preserved. Speaking of the supreme court, that is another issue that makes me unsure of Kerry. I think the sumpreme court has way to much freaking power, and my ideas of how the court should function are much more in line with Bush than Kerry. Also, it is a miracle that some of the judges hanged on for as long as they have, and despite who wins there is a very high chance that at least one judge would be replaced. This would cause rulings on abortion and gay marriage to go the way I would favor (which be anti-aborition and anti-gay marriage just for the record). Finally, I am very unsure about Kerry on foreign policy. While I do beleive that President Bush burned far to many bridges and was a bit to strong handed and uncouth in his international relations. I was very happy that he stopped walking on eggshells and bending over backwards to appease some nations (i.e. France).

So basically my predicment is this: Do I choose Bush based on moral grounds or Kerry based on political ideals. comments, opinions, persuasive essays, and cash bribes are now welcome.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's my stance on it. When it comes to choosing a leader for the country, the choice should be made on political stances and how they will lead. You should choose the canidate who will do the most amount of good for the most people (i.e. not just helping the rich with tax cuts, or just helping the poor by making more and more social services without proper limitations). A moral person, as you referred to Bush (and by the way, I would disagree on some points of his good morals - the assault gun ban, death penalty, to name a few) may be a poor leader. A good leader may not always have the best morals (I point to Clinton...a great leader, but immoral man).

So there's my stance. Take it how you will.


8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, it is the morals of a man (or lack thereof) that determine his discisions. I make no bones about it, I would rather have Bush in office becuase of his stance on subjects that I believe to be important (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) than Kerry with his lack of ability to choose a side. No one can always be in the middle. You have to choose what is most important to your belief system. Bush and Kerry could probably rank the same on a leadership scale.... though I will naturally lean toward Bush since that's where my bias lies. So, Sean, the question really is, are you willing to sacrifice your "moral" stance? Or your "political" stance? Which is going to yield the best outcome?

~Colleen M.

6:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Supreme Court has way too much freaknig power"?

I suggest you go back to your basic Government class. The Supreme Court is meant to be an INDEPENDENT check on the power of the Legislative and Executive branches of Government so that:

1) Lawmakers do not have too much power
2) The President does not have too much power

The second point is very important, because if you recall from history, America was founded upon extreme distrust of the King and lawmakers. The result of this distrust is the fact that the Supreme Court functions as a CHECK on power of the Executive branch, so that the Executive branch (headed by the President) does not become so power-hungry as to exercise too much control on the will of the people.

In fact, because America's Founding Fathers were so distrustful of government and those who govern the people they created this three-pillar system of checks and balances just so that one pillar does not get too much power over another - so that one part of government does not become like a king unto itself. I think you can see the danger of one pillar becoming too powerful over the others.

A weak Supreme Court under the Bush Presidency does nothing but harm America. Witness the USA PATRIOT Act. Had the PATRIOT Act been subject to the scrutiny of the judges, it never would have been signed. Why? Because it removes so many civil liberties that the courts and lawmakers have worked so hard to give the people over the history of the country.

Another point is: America is not a theocracy. Religious morals have no place in the legal sphere. Absolutely not. Thomas Jefferson was absolutely mistrustful of any organized religion, which is why he and the other Founding Fathers worked SO HARD to remove any religious influence in Government. On the same-sex marriage issue, I think the legal process should decide this, not through the arbitrary power of the Excutive branch (the President). It is the Executive branch's job to ensure laws are followed, not to make laws! The Executive branch can propose laws, but then it is is up to the Legislative branch to approve, and the Judicial branch to test the legality and fairness. There was already a vote in Congress about same-sex marriage, and no one wanted to change the Constitution in order to take rights away from a select group of people. Let the states decide about same-sex marriage, because the Federal Government already meddles in our lives far too much.

If you want a government that is ruled based upon the morals of religion, go to Iran. It's religious rulers run the country. People get beheaded and killed if they are suspected to be homosexual or if the women cheat on their husbands.

8:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home