"the Truth at any cost"

Friday, June 08, 2007

Primaries, Third Parties, my Support goes to....

Well, we are through two Democratic debates and anyone who gives a shit probably knows at least a bit about the major candidates. But before I give my list from my favorites to least favorites, let me explain why I have decided this is important. Let's face it, after 8 years of Bush, and a war with very low approval ratings, it is very likely a Democrat will become President next. Of course, this might just be because I live in Iowa City, because in 2004 I thought there was not much of a way Bush could win again. Nevertheless, national polls are against Republicans right now, and most experts think the Democrats will continue to sweep elections until this unpopular war ends.
And that is why the Democratic primaries are so important to me, and why I feel endorsing a Candidate is important early this time around.

Secondly, before I get to the ratings, I want to reiterate my sentiment from last year that in local races everyone should support third parties on principle. Green, libertarian, whatever--a duopoly is not a good system. It isn't democracy. I read a good article about that here.
(If that link is weird, just go to desmoinesregister.com and search 'green party'.

Anyway, I have done a little research on the third party candidates, and I'm not too impressed with any of them. So here is my ranking of the current democratic candidates, from best to last. (By the way, of the Republicans, I like Guiliani, but in all truth, the republicans look pathetic. They continue to rely on fear mongering.)

1. John Edwards - I love this man. Charismatic, universal mandatory health-care (with an actual plan to back it up). What makes him stand out? I have never seen such a serious candidate come out and tell the truth: Taxes need to be raised. WOW. Balls.
2. Denis Kucinich - I love Denis. He was my guy at first. Nothing like a hippie politician. He really believes what he says, but he is too much of a peacenik even for me. I love peace; but a Department of Peace? C'mon dude.
3. Joe Biden - "We need to rid of regime change as a foreign policy." Thank you Joe. Secondly, on Darfur "We can sit here all day and talk. That is all anyone ever does about Darfur. We need to send in peace keeping U.S. troops now. While we are sitting here talking, 50,000 more people are dying." (These are both paraphrases.)
4. Bill Richardson - Honestly, I can't really stand the guy. But he has a ton of experience and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize 4 times...very pragmatic, but a question dodger.
5. Mike Gravel - Ok, he is a loose canon. I don't want him to be President. But I want him to continue to be at the debates to call people out on their shit. He called out the senators, along with Kucinich, on not ending the war (yes it is in their power, comment on this if you want to dispute it). And he called Hilary out on her 'balanced budget'--it was balanced because of money taken from social security.
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Barack Obama - You know, I like how Obama speaks. But he is a Democrat who wants to add to the Pentagon budget. What is that?
8. Hilary Clinton - I don't like her, I think she is a politician's politician. In the last debate all she did was point out how alike the democrats were in an effort to make her views ok. And also shifted all blame to Bush. She is running on the 'anything but another Bush' ticket. (See John Kerry).

So, not surprisingly, the popular (and more moderate) candidates are at the bottom. But surprisingly, for me at least, my favorite presidential candidate actually does have a chance of winning for once. I don't think anyone I've ever voted for on the national level has ever won. I didn't even vote for Loebsack! So, maybe, if Edwards can push forward, I can actually back a winner. He is in third in the polls now, but a lot of people think he won the debate on Sunday. Thats a good sign.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

I think I am becoming...a pundit....

Not like a opinion leader or anything of that sort, because...well I haven't known many people who take my advice or hold my viewpoints. But I am just politics obsessed lately. Its pretty disgusting.

Anyway, stumbled across this great site yesterday--- WorldPublicOpinion.org
They gather surveys worldwide about stuff and bring it all together. Want to know how Muslims feel about Americans? ...we all know the world doesn't feel too greatly about America, but how does the world feel about the EU?
Polls are interesting because they are another outlet for democracy. And it is amazing how much polls can vary from the politicians that poll-takers voted in.
A couple of interesting things I've stumbled across so far:
Most Americans support the UN, and want it helped along to become a relevant international player. This is interesting, possibly only to me, because conservatives tend to be against the UN on the grounds that they don't get anything accomplished. But to me, this isn't a reason to abolish the UN, or quit funding it, but to improve it. Some people seem convinced that you can't fix what is broken, but it seems ridiculous to disband an international community of rational people because they haven't gotten a lot done lately.

How about this...Muslims overwhelmingly think the US is trying to divide and weaken Islam!

Ok...I can't even begin to respond to that. Obviously some policies need to be changed somewhere, if we are alienating not just a few radicals but the entire international Muslim community. Has Bush seen this poll?

And then, of course my favorite...the one which I argued with my own mother about.
Iraqis want Americans out.
Now we aren't in Iraq for WMDs. We are arguably not in Iraq for Al-Qaeda...I say arguably because even though no links between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda have been proven, it could still be said that Sadaam let them hang out in the country...they are both Sunni. But that is a questionable link. So the official government argument is that we are in Iraq to promote democracy in the Middle East.
But let's stop right there.
Is U.S.A. really always pro-democracy, or are they pro-democracy when democracy happens to be a good thing for the U.S.? Case in point: The 2006 Palestinian election. Hamas comes in and wins a democratic election, as far as everyone knows fairly, and aid is withdrawn left and right. I understand Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. I understand they are seen as a terrorist organization. But ok, I guess we don't support democracy in all circumstances. Am I speaking too radically if I say you have to accept politicians you vehemently disagree with to win elections?
Now, back from that tangent, let's look at this poll, example number 2 of why the U.S. isn't really pro-democracy all the time. Iraqis want Americans out. 80%. So there you go. There is democracy. read the article, I won't waste my time repeating it.
My point is, and this is coming off of the top of my head, if you are going to support democracy, support it all the time, even when you disagree with how it turns out. Not doing so is just as bad as those liberals (Yeah, thats right, I'm attacking my own crowd) that are pro free speech until something sexist comes out of someone's mouth.

And finally, I Like Al-Jazeera. I think what they do is wonderful. But more on that next time....

Labels: , , , , ,