Decisions, Decisions
Several years ago, my friend Wendy Kay gave me one of the best pieces of advice I've ever received:
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
That's why I don't write a lot about politics here. Some people like to debate and argue as a hobby; I just don't. Why pick a fight if you don't have to? Nevertheless, it's Primary Day here in Utah (as in much of the rest of the country), so I'm writing about politics. And while I'm normally not as dedicated about the primaries as I am about the November elections, I'm making it a point to vote today. As I see it, this is basically a four person race for the Presidency at this point. (Sorry, Mike Huckabee, but you haven't really been relevant since Iowa.) Think of this post as me thinking aloud about the various candidates.
Politically, I see myself as a right-leaning moderate. I don't believe that either party—even the one of which I'm a registered member—has all of the answers. I believe that elected leaders on both ends of the political spectrum need to learn to work with each other in the best interests of the nation. That's the part I feel is most sorely lacking: the cooperation. It's all Red-State-this and Blue-State-that anymore. Whatever happened to being "One Nation"?
Whoever ends up winning the Presidential election will be inheriting a train wreck. This is not meant as just a slap at the current administration; it's about the whole Washington D.C. culture. The political system is broken, and to keep doing things they way same they've been done for the last 8 or 16 or 20 years isn't going to fix it. There has to be a change in attitude, a fundamental difference in the way our elected leaders interact with each other and with their constituents. And that involves putting the interests of the country ahead of personal or party interests.
Anyway, here's how I see the various candidates.
John McCain
There are a lot of hard-core Republicans who dislike McCain. They call him a RINO (Republican In Name Only). They say this because, they claim, he spends too much time working with Democrats and not enough time promoting he Republican agenda. To me, that's not a problem. We could use that ability to cooperate and compromise in the Oval Office, especially if the Congress continues to be controlled by the Democratic party. I could vote for McCain and feel just fine with it.
Mitt Romney
A lot of people say Romney flip-flops too much. Years ago he was in favor of abortion rights, now he's against them. He used to say he was against a return to Reagan-Bush, now he's courting conservatives. Admittedly, this could be a turn-off. But considered in context, these positions make sense to me. When you're running for Congress or Governor in a state like Massachusetts where the large majority of your intended constituents support abortion rights and oppose the policies of Reagan-Bush, you have to show that you're willing to represent the views of the people you'll be representing. That's the nature of the job. So I'm not bothered much by that. What I like about Romney is his private sector leadership experience, which I have seen right here where I live. When Romney took over the Salt Lake Olympic Committee, it was in financial disarray and mired in scandal. Under his leadership, the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics were smooth and successful. Bottom line: Romney has proven he can get things done. And that's not a bad quality for an executive, especially the Chief Executive, to have.
Barack Obama
I don't agree with all of his political positions. But truth be told, I don't agree entirely with any of these candidates. What I like about Obama is his message: hope, optimism, and cooperation. Of the remaining candidates, Obama is the one I think is most genuinely interested in changing the way things are done in Washington. Could he really make that big a difference? I don't know. But while he wouldn't be my first choice, I think I'd be okay with seeing him try.
Hillary Clinton
I don't like her personally and I don't trust her politically. I think she's a political opportunist and nothing more; I think she has the best interests of her constituents in mind only insofar as they coincide with what's best for her career. And as an aside, electing her would ensure that the Presidency remains in the hands of the same two families for nearly a quarter of a century, and perhaps longer. That's fine for Europe, maybe, not it's so great for us. At any rate, she is the one candidate that I am certain to vote against, regardless of who her opponent may be.
Unbiased analysis? Probably not. Could I have done more research on the candidates? Undoubtedly. This is just a snapshot of what I see at the moment. Once the dust clears a little, I'll look into things in a little more depth. By the time November rolls around, I'll know exactly who I want as the next President of the United States. And I hope you all will, too. That's the only way this system works.
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
That's why I don't write a lot about politics here. Some people like to debate and argue as a hobby; I just don't. Why pick a fight if you don't have to? Nevertheless, it's Primary Day here in Utah (as in much of the rest of the country), so I'm writing about politics. And while I'm normally not as dedicated about the primaries as I am about the November elections, I'm making it a point to vote today. As I see it, this is basically a four person race for the Presidency at this point. (Sorry, Mike Huckabee, but you haven't really been relevant since Iowa.) Think of this post as me thinking aloud about the various candidates.
Politically, I see myself as a right-leaning moderate. I don't believe that either party—even the one of which I'm a registered member—has all of the answers. I believe that elected leaders on both ends of the political spectrum need to learn to work with each other in the best interests of the nation. That's the part I feel is most sorely lacking: the cooperation. It's all Red-State-this and Blue-State-that anymore. Whatever happened to being "One Nation"?
Whoever ends up winning the Presidential election will be inheriting a train wreck. This is not meant as just a slap at the current administration; it's about the whole Washington D.C. culture. The political system is broken, and to keep doing things they way same they've been done for the last 8 or 16 or 20 years isn't going to fix it. There has to be a change in attitude, a fundamental difference in the way our elected leaders interact with each other and with their constituents. And that involves putting the interests of the country ahead of personal or party interests.
Anyway, here's how I see the various candidates.
John McCain
There are a lot of hard-core Republicans who dislike McCain. They call him a RINO (Republican In Name Only). They say this because, they claim, he spends too much time working with Democrats and not enough time promoting he Republican agenda. To me, that's not a problem. We could use that ability to cooperate and compromise in the Oval Office, especially if the Congress continues to be controlled by the Democratic party. I could vote for McCain and feel just fine with it.
Mitt Romney
A lot of people say Romney flip-flops too much. Years ago he was in favor of abortion rights, now he's against them. He used to say he was against a return to Reagan-Bush, now he's courting conservatives. Admittedly, this could be a turn-off. But considered in context, these positions make sense to me. When you're running for Congress or Governor in a state like Massachusetts where the large majority of your intended constituents support abortion rights and oppose the policies of Reagan-Bush, you have to show that you're willing to represent the views of the people you'll be representing. That's the nature of the job. So I'm not bothered much by that. What I like about Romney is his private sector leadership experience, which I have seen right here where I live. When Romney took over the Salt Lake Olympic Committee, it was in financial disarray and mired in scandal. Under his leadership, the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics were smooth and successful. Bottom line: Romney has proven he can get things done. And that's not a bad quality for an executive, especially the Chief Executive, to have.
Barack Obama
I don't agree with all of his political positions. But truth be told, I don't agree entirely with any of these candidates. What I like about Obama is his message: hope, optimism, and cooperation. Of the remaining candidates, Obama is the one I think is most genuinely interested in changing the way things are done in Washington. Could he really make that big a difference? I don't know. But while he wouldn't be my first choice, I think I'd be okay with seeing him try.
Hillary Clinton
I don't like her personally and I don't trust her politically. I think she's a political opportunist and nothing more; I think she has the best interests of her constituents in mind only insofar as they coincide with what's best for her career. And as an aside, electing her would ensure that the Presidency remains in the hands of the same two families for nearly a quarter of a century, and perhaps longer. That's fine for Europe, maybe, not it's so great for us. At any rate, she is the one candidate that I am certain to vote against, regardless of who her opponent may be.
Unbiased analysis? Probably not. Could I have done more research on the candidates? Undoubtedly. This is just a snapshot of what I see at the moment. Once the dust clears a little, I'll look into things in a little more depth. By the time November rolls around, I'll know exactly who I want as the next President of the United States. And I hope you all will, too. That's the only way this system works.
posted by Michael at
9:55 AM
1 Comments:
I think we see pretty eye-to-eye on this one. Interesting that Mit dropped out today. My Dad and my Dan are both disappointed. I like that McCain can work with the democrats. And I certainly might vote for Barak just to spite Hilary.
By
Wendy, At
February 07, 2008 1:30 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home