My Blog List

People I Know

Eclectic Folks

Media Blogs

Politics, Policy Blogs

Page Rank

Check Page Rank of your Web site pages instantly:

This page rank checking tool is powered by Page Rank Checker service

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Presidential QUESTIONS

ADD notes a "website that lists all the major candidates and their stands on the issues; at least, the issues as designated by whoever created the site."

1. Based solely on the issues, not silly things such as "electability", which candidate best represents your positions on the issues? For me, wide-eyed liberal that I am, it's Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who I voted for in the 2004 Democratic primary. Second is former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska.

2. Yet I'm disinclined to vote for Kucinich, or for that matter, Gravel, because they are unelectable the way the system is set up. Call that a self-fulfilling prophecy, but there it is. Then who? Let's do this by process of elimination. Not all issues are the same in my mind. Gun background check (in favor), the death penalty (against), the war in Iraq (against), torture (against), and the same-sex constitutional ban (against) provides a pretty good litmus test. By that standard, I disagree at least thrice with Brownback, Cox, Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter (a perfect 5 for 5), McCain, Romney and Tancredo. Thompson doesn't have enough known positions, surprise, surprise. Who's on your "no way, no how" list?

3. So who am I leaning towards? The person who just might have enough money to actually win whose position is closest to mine turns out to be Obama, who I still wonder about, experience-wise. How about you?
***
One of those bizarre political stories involves former Congressman John Sweeney, who represented the Congressional district adjacent to Albany. He was one of those Republican thugs who helped get the 2000 recount in Florida stopped. His 2006 re-election bid was stopped, in no small part, by allegations of domestic violence against his second wife Gayle (or Gaia) in December 2005. The Sweeneys denied it, claiming it was a smear campaign by his opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand. Now, he's saying that there WAS domestic violence, but that HE was the victim, and that he's even gotten a judge to give him an order of protection. Gayle, who said in television commercials last fall that there was no violence, now claims she was coerced to say so, and that she was the victim. Now John's first wife has entered the fray, stating that he was never physically violent towards her.
* John getting a restraining order against Gayle doesn't prove that Gayle was the aggressor. He's been a very powerful man, politically.
* Wife #1's claim that she never experienced domestic violence from John doesn't mean that wife #2, who was considerably younger and, in her own words, "in awe of him" in the beginning, wasn't experiencing abuse.
* In most iterations of this story, there's a lot of alcohol mentioned.
As I said, very bizarre
***
Meanwhile, the new member of Congress, Ms. Gillibrand, had a press conference this week announcing a bill to increase the tax deduction on day care costs. She had it in an Albany daycare that is not even in her district. But then I remember that her district, that runs from Washington County to Delaware County (note to non-New Yorkers: a big chunk of territory) without including any of the cities (Albany, Schenectady, Troy); it was gerrymandered to be a safe Republican district, mostly rural. I'm sure it's easier to get the Capital District press to come to Albany than the countryside.


ROG

3 comments:

Lefty said...

I think I'm leaning more towards Edwards, but I would feel real, real good voting for many of the Dems this year.

I do think that Obama has the charisma and great oratary skills to market himself as a President, much the same way Kennedy or for that matter Clinton did in their primary runs.

Al Cannistraro said...

Re whom to support for president, don't you think the most important criterion is to be able to effectively lead an overall administration that you trust? In other words, positions on individual are secondary to proven ability to lead. I have in mind the disasterous reaction (or non-reaction) of GWB to 9-11, and his delegation of foreign policy leadership to his ne-con caretakers.

What evidence do you have that Kucinich and Gavel can lead? My feeling is that Kucinich just likes being a presidential candidate? Who wouldn't? It's free! Re Gavel, he's just too old and inexperienced.

BTW, I happen to live in Sweeney's old district, but I did not support him.

Roger Green said...

Al-By that standard, how can we tell if ANY of them, arguably excluding Bill Richardson and Rudy Guiliani, can lead? Most of them are members of Congress, and the most they have led are committees.
OK, you can say HC led the health care process in the mid-'90s, which worked out so well. Edwards was a one-term U.S. Senator, Obama not even that. In any case, I DID say I was disinclined to vote for Kucinich, despite his positions being comparable with mine. Yet I can't vote for people whose values are an anathema to me, either, so there goes Rudy. But you're right about GWB.