There really isn't an entertainment angle on this post (except a strained Law & Order connection), but I found this 2008 Presidential candidate quiz very good. It is quick to answer with good analysis of your results. I'll put who I matched up with in the comments section. http://www.politalk.com/candi-date.php
Monday, September 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Huckabee, 67%. My views on Iraq are the only place I differ with him.
I am not sure who I am supporting yet. Whether I can support a former Baptist minister who is primarily known for losing weight remains to be seen.
Rudy - 80%.
fred thompson. although irl i prefer huckabee. gees.
lawyer's wife.
bill richardson. 73%
Priest, we need to talk.
it would be interesting to see who is second, etc..., but i do really like richardson. if i thought he had a snowball's chance in hell, i'd be pulling for him pretty hard. he's got strong international experience, a must i feel in our current climate, and he has executive leadership experience. and we more-or-less agree on climate issues. and i think we've got to do some thingson health care. i actually really like huckabee as well (although please note the same concerns regarding snowballs and damnation). i'm sure my stance on tax cuts hurt me on the republican side of things, but our current prez has me believing that tax cuts at the moment are not the answer. being in a war where we, as a nation, are not filling the financial effects is fiscally stupid. spending money like your democrats while taxing like your republicans is the dumbest thing (outside of entering into the quagmire that is the middle east with an "elevate and decide in the air" mentality and never making a decision on a way forward in New Orleans) i've seen from the current administration.
Taxes: While I agree that running deficits is not the best case scenario, I subscribe to the supply side economic theory (give the people the money, they'll make more) and think the tax cuts are part of what has kept our economy at a blistering pace over the past few years. The point that is missed on the whole 'tax cuts for the rich' argument is that the 'poor' don't even pay taxes, so its impossible to cut theirs. In the last tax year, the top 50% of wage earners paid 96.03% of all income taxes. So....you can't really 'cut' taxes without giving the Dems ammo to load up their class warfare gun.
Climate: For those that don't know about Richardson's energy plan, go here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/17/151725/397 . The bottom line is that all of his 'goals' are pie in the sky BS that, if achieved, will grind the US economy to a screeching halt. I agree that we should try to reduce our dependency on foreign oil (but for defense reasons, not global warming reasons). As for the current state of the 'air', the number of particulates in the air has drastically reduced since the 1970's: http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/reports/statistics/tab5x1.html . The left has made being green about morality. I care about the air, and I acknowledge that human activity influences global warming. However, I believe that our impact is analagous to running a water hose in New Orleans during Katrina....impacting, but not much.
Iraq: Go see No End in Sight, the doc I reviewed. I think the hindsight is that we shouldn't have gone and that the aftermath and set up of the new country was bungled as badly as it could've been. I am still working through what staying there gets us. The surge worked, duh, if you send more soldiers things get better. The problem is that they're still trying to recover from the stupid de b'aathification. Reagan has been our best foreign policy president, and he had no experience. I am not 'buying' a president for their experience as much as I am buying their thought process and conviction.
taxes: note that i made not one allusion to the "tax cuts for the rich" argument. that's politicing plain and simple. my problem with running the war on visa is the same problem republicans generally have with public housing projects. if you don't feel the crunch of making the payment, you don't care. you're not invested. you'll spray paint it orange or whatever. because we don't have a draft and we are running a war on borrowed money (completely, mind you, so don't bring up the whole "we've always had war bonds" argument) there is no buy in on this war. we don't care too much because our kids aren't dying and we aren't feeling the crunch financially. we are completely detached. that said, i am for fiscal responsibility and, generally speaking, smaller government. it's the primary reason i've voted republican most of my life. but the republicans have apparently surrendered this plank. to who, i'm not sure.
environment: i actually don't know too much about richardson on the environment (as mentioned, i don't think he's got a shot, so i haven't studied him with a fine tooth comb) except that he's strong. i'm against pie-in-the-sky environmentalism, but i'm also against head-in-the-sand industrialism, which seems to be the stance of the rightwing of the republican party. the fact is, more green makes sense for defense, it makes sense for our international relationships, and it makes sense scientifically. more to the point, if we will put some tech dollars towards it, it will make sense financially. if richardson is so liberal on the subject, perhaps a republican congress (I like to have the president from one party and at least one of the houses from the othes. there's just too much graft when no one's watching the cookie jar) would straighten him out.
Iraq: i'm with you on this one. i can't figure out what we should do at this point. i do think we have a moral obligation to try and help the country get out of this mess if it is doable. but is it? and at what price? it's not obvious to me one way or the other.
reagan was great internationally, but he had baker as chief of staff and schultz (i guess haig first) as sec. of state. a great team. of course, bush had powell, but he ignored him then fired him and rice isn't going down as one of the greats. and things were simpler for reagan. you had the communists, pure and simple. when things got tricky (beirut bombing) reagan wisely got out of town. bush tried to use the same black-and-white thinking against the terrorists, but the political landscape had changed far too much, and islamic terrorism is too tricky to paint universally with a broad brush the way communists could be. so, i'm still for int'l experience and it's worth noting reagan had my other prereq: executive experience.
Post a Comment