my biggest problem with this blogger thing is that i cant ever figure out how to post. Well, i obviously do figure it out, but i have to relearn every time.
So, since i dont think anyone really reads this, i shall say whatever i want in here.
Actually i am going to say something that spurs debate maybe.
As a 19 yr old, this fall will be my first ever time to vote for president. So i need to make sure I made the right choice. Sure i could go out and read articles about all the candidates and such, but that takes too much time, and aside from all the working, and calculus, i do, i rarely have more than 2 hours a night on average to do anything else. So here's what i know right now...
Bush: current president. I dont like him because we've got this whole war thing that i think is not a really good idea. We are too deeply involved in Iraq where i think it would be better if we focused more on issues within our own country. Untill we are perfect i think it would be best if we minded our own business.
Kerry: He's got some issues i do not agree with. Mainly the one that he is nailed on the most is his pro choice view on abortion. I believe abortion is murder and I really do not think that it should be legal in any way shape or form. Well, i take that back, if it is endangering the life of the mother, ones of those types of situations i think it is ok.
Other than those two i dont really know much more about anyone else.
People talk about Nader, but i dont know who he is.
So, if you feel so inclined to help me on my search for the perfect president leave a comment.
2 comments:
The problem with the "until we are perfect I think it would be best if we minded our own business" argument is that we will never be perfect. We cannot make our country a utopian paradise, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the rest of the world around us. Aiding civilians of oppressed countries is a noble pursuit, as is prevention of larger conflicts.
Iraq is becoming less and less of an issue. Iraqis already have their own [democratic] government that is in power, and we are training their police to protect their citizens from terrorist activities.
-Greg
I'm in the same boat, too. This will be my first time voting in a presidential election. It will be interesting.
I have to agree with Greg on his first paragraph: there is little to no hope of us being a utopian paradise, no matter how much all the candidates try to convince us otherwise through baseless promises.
Removing Saddam Hussein was good, but also it has created more problems so I have to half way disagree with Greg on how Iraq is less of an issue. Yes, we're no longer "in control," but our service men (and women) are still in harm's way over there. That will play in this election year.
What either side boils down to though, Kristen, is two different approaches:
Republicans -- Making values the issue (i.e. Gay marraige, abortion, etc.). President Bush is forcing the issue here to entergize his own political base (social conservatives) who are against both abortion and gay marriage. Bush is trying to convey Kerry as out of step with American values.
It certainly doesn't help Kerry that he is Catholic and generally supportive of both issues (although stately that he "personally" is against both...[i.e. his statements that "life starts at conception" statements aimed at the conserative Catholic voters). This, of course, makes Kerry look somewhat like a flip-flopper.
Democrats -- They are trying to make the war an issue and--much like Clinton's 1992 run against Bush, Sr.--the economy ("It's the economy, Stupid!"). This being said, the Democrats have already entergized their liberal base through the party primaries (Howard Dean's grassroots efforts) and the general distaste by many democrats/liberals against the Bush administration (protrayed so "well" in Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11"...which I personally think borders on propaganda [see the link below]).
Nader -- He was the Green party candidate in 2000 that reportedly drew a number of votes away from Gore (most notably in Florida) and then tipped the balance for the Electoral College votes (another area of frustration for democrats, even now). He is no longer the Green party candidate, but is getting on the ballot in most states (in part with a little help from the GOP). He doesn't seem to play as a large factor in this year's election as in 2000.
Personally, I agree with you on your stance on abortion. As a Catholic, I would in other instances consider Kerry more, but the way he disregards his supposed "values." It concerns me, so I'm leaning towards Bush, no matter the clear failures of judgement in some fautly CIA intelligence before the Iraq war. To me values mean more to me than Kerry's claims for foriegn policy improvement. It seems that he really isn't providing much of a difference in approach.
To me Kerry is as a CNN analyst called him after his DNC acceptance speech: "stiff." He still doesn't know how to connect to (at least me). Furthermore, I don't see much a personality out of him. I think he might've cracked a smile during his speech Thursday night, maybe once (and the media called that "loosening up" for him)!
Here is an example of Michael Moore's propaganda-like tactics for his "documentary" on the Iraq war: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040730/ap_en_mo/people_michael_moore_1
Frankly, it concerns me when people in America can call this a documentary when Moore uses ambush tactics, newspaper doctored "headlines," and unbalanced views. To me that's a blatant lie and much worse than Bush's fault of relying on faulty CIA intelligence. Some changes still could happen with Bush's cabinet. Colin Powell is getting burned out in the State Dept. and Condie Rice is too as NSA. Personally I'd like to see Rumsfeld and have McCain replace Cheney, but that's only in a "perfect world," I suppose.
Your welcome to see some of my posts at my blog, http://johnbook.blogspot.com ("The Ramblings, Rants, and Raves of John Book"). I should have a couple poltical posts in the near future.
Post a Comment