as the presidential race is heating up we will inevitably be exposed to a lot of campaign rhetoric that would not sound like it is a bias against the normal set of candidates but with this campaign where age and race are involved what would normally be perceived as rhetoric will to some degree be perceived as a bias either against age or race.
the real problem is having to choose between two individuals one of which believes in the current policies which have brought our country to a breaking point domestically and internationally; the other has the ability to tell you exactly what groups would like to hear but hasn't really come out and said anything with regards to how his goals for this country will be achieved.
Showing posts with label candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label candidates. Show all posts
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Obama and Clinton
When it comes to the Democratic Party and the potential problems foreseen for the general election, it may actually be a good idea that Obama and Clinton pair up for the democratic ticket for the general election. This would be due to the fact that they both have people who would rather vote for a Republican rather than the opposing Democratic candidate along with having similar platforms in terms of the issues.
The only real problem is that both are strong willed people that would rather have things done their way. It is understandable that they would prefer their own ideas on the issues done but it also gets them both into The White House regardless of which one is president. If you actually sit down and think about it, even if Clinton decides to go with being vice president Obama would have a former president available for advice when he feels he needs someone else’s opinion.
By no means am I saying that one would be better at being president than the other, all I will say is that each of them on their own they face discrimination based either on gender or race together they offset the others discrimination which may actually give a combined ticket with both of them on it a real chance of winning against McCain.
If they can get past their own presumptions on what would be the best way to do each and everything I think they can make a great team, especially if they can retool or combine different aspects of what they like about the others plan on each issue.
The only real problem is that both are strong willed people that would rather have things done their way. It is understandable that they would prefer their own ideas on the issues done but it also gets them both into The White House regardless of which one is president. If you actually sit down and think about it, even if Clinton decides to go with being vice president Obama would have a former president available for advice when he feels he needs someone else’s opinion.
By no means am I saying that one would be better at being president than the other, all I will say is that each of them on their own they face discrimination based either on gender or race together they offset the others discrimination which may actually give a combined ticket with both of them on it a real chance of winning against McCain.
If they can get past their own presumptions on what would be the best way to do each and everything I think they can make a great team, especially if they can retool or combine different aspects of what they like about the others plan on each issue.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
an opinion on the presidential primary season
I do not favor one specific presidential candidate but do have an opinion on how this election season looks.
This time around even though it is still in the primary season, it looks more like the run up to the general election in regards to the campaign rhetoric from the major candidates.
the one real difference this time is that depending on the outcome it can perpetuate several different stereotypes that our society has been striving to knock down.
one is the gender stereotypes for which tend to perpetuate that people in general don't want women in what is traditionally a mans position, another is the racial stereotypes which denigrate minorities when they try to accomplish what is seen as not being capable of being done by a minority. We can't forget about the age bias either that has been floated in the past either for which is seen all over the place with regards to people past a certain age doing specific things.
There is one question however that should not have been brought up which is whether John McCain is eligible to run for president. Yes he was born on a United States Military base in Panama, what most people don't know is that when a child of a service man is born on a U.S. Military instillation in a foreign country, they are automatically both a U.S. citizen but also automatically a foreign born citizen and upon their eighteenth birthday they have to choose which citizenship they wish to have. Given where he has chosen to live his life it is evident that he chose the U.S. citizenship.
This time around even though it is still in the primary season, it looks more like the run up to the general election in regards to the campaign rhetoric from the major candidates.
the one real difference this time is that depending on the outcome it can perpetuate several different stereotypes that our society has been striving to knock down.
one is the gender stereotypes for which tend to perpetuate that people in general don't want women in what is traditionally a mans position, another is the racial stereotypes which denigrate minorities when they try to accomplish what is seen as not being capable of being done by a minority. We can't forget about the age bias either that has been floated in the past either for which is seen all over the place with regards to people past a certain age doing specific things.
There is one question however that should not have been brought up which is whether John McCain is eligible to run for president. Yes he was born on a United States Military base in Panama, what most people don't know is that when a child of a service man is born on a U.S. Military instillation in a foreign country, they are automatically both a U.S. citizen but also automatically a foreign born citizen and upon their eighteenth birthday they have to choose which citizenship they wish to have. Given where he has chosen to live his life it is evident that he chose the U.S. citizenship.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
commentary on the presidential candiates
Dealing with the issue of race and gender in the democratic primaries, there has been no direct commentary that I have heard regarding race or gender coming from the candidates directly. The issues of race and gender have, but others regardless of whether they were part of the campaigns or not have had commentary on both. Early on it was general commentary about gender and whether a woman was electable, not it has gone from general commentary about gender to more specific commentary that normally goes on in other public forums in regards to race and an individual’s personal actions.
Obama has consistently tried to take race out of the equation, which is a good thing since he is actually mixed regardless of who says what about his race. At the same time there are elements out there in this country that purposely inject race into what ever they can even if an opponent is going with the actions of the individual. The problem is that the people who inject race tend to equate an attack on an individual as an attack on the race itself, which causes a tit-for-tat situation which works against both sides.
If either Obama or Clinton gets the nomination for the party, race or gender will definitely play a role in the general election due to the nature of our society and the nature of campaigning. All of the candidates have to actually take a stand and show everyone that there is no room for gender or racial bias in their campaigns otherwise it will only get worse as the campaigning goes on whether or not the candidates really want that stuff injected.
All of the candidates in both parities have all been campaigning to some degree for change, the thing is that change happens with each new administration sometimes it’s for the better sometimes for worse. The thing is that going from experience a campaign just touting change is far different then providing proof that you are going to make changes if elected.
The candidates have been saying we need to change this or change that but I have not heard one iota about the specifics of how they plan to change each issue that they have been stating that needs to be changed which for them is a good thing for them but a bad thing for the voters and the electorate. It is a good thing for the candidates not to go into specifics since it can come back to haunt them if they do but at the same time it is very bad for the voters and the electorate due to a lack of information to make an informed decision on who to vote for which opens up the opportunity for here say on what the candidates mean when the talk about change.
Beyond the race and gender issues, there is a definite feel that the candidates are already acting as if this is the general election instead of the primary due to the fact that the front runners for both parties are consistently attacking each other on stuff that pertains to their own actions. The general response has been to these attacks have been the same coming from both parties with the responses being “that’s not what I said or did” or “that’s not what I meant” even with evidence in hand to show that is what was said or done.
That shows me that the candidates who are using those general lines are trying to run or hide their record especially if it goes against what they are currently stating they stand for in their campaign for president. Those candidates more than anyone else have to show what they actually stand for due to the fact that they don’t want their own past used against them and if they don’t want their past involved in the current campaign season, then they have to have the same hands off approach for the past for the other candidates that they expect the other candidates to have with them.
The one real way to show that they intend on making real changes if they get elected is to actually show that their intent to change is real and by actually showing how they intend on changing things while in office. They have to make an honest attempt to show that they are more than willing to work with both democrats and republicans in the attempt to make the changes by allowing the proposed changes to be reworked by both parties as long as the way you wish it to work remains relatively the same and can actually produce positive changes for the issues.
Change for the sake of change isn’t at all a good thing, change to make a positive change is regardless of who actually comes up with the change. Real change in relation to issues that the government has to take up, comes when we actually take the time to work out how to do things in a way that promotes positive results for as many people as possible not for a select demographics.
Obama has consistently tried to take race out of the equation, which is a good thing since he is actually mixed regardless of who says what about his race. At the same time there are elements out there in this country that purposely inject race into what ever they can even if an opponent is going with the actions of the individual. The problem is that the people who inject race tend to equate an attack on an individual as an attack on the race itself, which causes a tit-for-tat situation which works against both sides.
If either Obama or Clinton gets the nomination for the party, race or gender will definitely play a role in the general election due to the nature of our society and the nature of campaigning. All of the candidates have to actually take a stand and show everyone that there is no room for gender or racial bias in their campaigns otherwise it will only get worse as the campaigning goes on whether or not the candidates really want that stuff injected.
All of the candidates in both parities have all been campaigning to some degree for change, the thing is that change happens with each new administration sometimes it’s for the better sometimes for worse. The thing is that going from experience a campaign just touting change is far different then providing proof that you are going to make changes if elected.
The candidates have been saying we need to change this or change that but I have not heard one iota about the specifics of how they plan to change each issue that they have been stating that needs to be changed which for them is a good thing for them but a bad thing for the voters and the electorate. It is a good thing for the candidates not to go into specifics since it can come back to haunt them if they do but at the same time it is very bad for the voters and the electorate due to a lack of information to make an informed decision on who to vote for which opens up the opportunity for here say on what the candidates mean when the talk about change.
Beyond the race and gender issues, there is a definite feel that the candidates are already acting as if this is the general election instead of the primary due to the fact that the front runners for both parties are consistently attacking each other on stuff that pertains to their own actions. The general response has been to these attacks have been the same coming from both parties with the responses being “that’s not what I said or did” or “that’s not what I meant” even with evidence in hand to show that is what was said or done.
That shows me that the candidates who are using those general lines are trying to run or hide their record especially if it goes against what they are currently stating they stand for in their campaign for president. Those candidates more than anyone else have to show what they actually stand for due to the fact that they don’t want their own past used against them and if they don’t want their past involved in the current campaign season, then they have to have the same hands off approach for the past for the other candidates that they expect the other candidates to have with them.
The one real way to show that they intend on making real changes if they get elected is to actually show that their intent to change is real and by actually showing how they intend on changing things while in office. They have to make an honest attempt to show that they are more than willing to work with both democrats and republicans in the attempt to make the changes by allowing the proposed changes to be reworked by both parties as long as the way you wish it to work remains relatively the same and can actually produce positive changes for the issues.
Change for the sake of change isn’t at all a good thing, change to make a positive change is regardless of who actually comes up with the change. Real change in relation to issues that the government has to take up, comes when we actually take the time to work out how to do things in a way that promotes positive results for as many people as possible not for a select demographics.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
the up coming primary/caucus season
The up coming Caucuses and primaries for the U.S. Presidential election will undoubtedly heat up after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. At this point in time the candidates are still trying to woo the voters while acting as if their a shoe in to win regardless of the latest poll numbers even if they are nail biting in the shadows.
There is one thing that a couple candidates more than the others are playing to and that is the religious beliefs of the voters especially in Iowa, which is in the Bible Belt of the nation. Unfortunately no one will take them to task on the separation of church and state even though the could be taken to task and they know that no one will call them on it either.
The law clearly states in article VI of the U.S. Constitution, that no religious test can be required to attain an appointed or elected office in the federal government. The first amendment also states that the government can make no laws an establisment of religion or prohibiting the exercise there of.
Unfortunately, over time these two things even though they state in no unclear terms have been pushed aside by people who wish to push their religious beliefs onto others and state that these lines in the constitution does not constitute a separation of church and state.
chances are one of the candidates that are playing to the religious beliefs of the Iowa voters will win the caucus it is just a question of by what margin.
There is one thing that a couple candidates more than the others are playing to and that is the religious beliefs of the voters especially in Iowa, which is in the Bible Belt of the nation. Unfortunately no one will take them to task on the separation of church and state even though the could be taken to task and they know that no one will call them on it either.
The law clearly states in article VI of the U.S. Constitution, that no religious test can be required to attain an appointed or elected office in the federal government. The first amendment also states that the government can make no laws an establisment of religion or prohibiting the exercise there of.
Unfortunately, over time these two things even though they state in no unclear terms have been pushed aside by people who wish to push their religious beliefs onto others and state that these lines in the constitution does not constitute a separation of church and state.
chances are one of the candidates that are playing to the religious beliefs of the Iowa voters will win the caucus it is just a question of by what margin.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
presidential candidates
This presidential election even though we are still in the primary season, we as a nation are in a different position than we normally are. This time around we are faced with deciding between genders and race which people have taken notice of.
regardless of qualifications, gender and race issues will arise as time goes by in this election season which will surely create tensions between various groups of people who might otherwise be on the same side in the way things get done.
the only way to get past the issues that may detract from who we feel is most qualified to be president, is to look past both the gender and race of the people who are running for president so we can actually see what they stand for and what they are hoping to accomplish as president in an attempt to find out who we think is the most qualified.
regardless of qualifications, gender and race issues will arise as time goes by in this election season which will surely create tensions between various groups of people who might otherwise be on the same side in the way things get done.
the only way to get past the issues that may detract from who we feel is most qualified to be president, is to look past both the gender and race of the people who are running for president so we can actually see what they stand for and what they are hoping to accomplish as president in an attempt to find out who we think is the most qualified.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
an opinion on mitt romney
Mitt Romney, he has shown everyone how he made his money by showing his sales prowess. First he did it with Massachusetts when he ran for governor right after his stint running the Olympics in Salt Lake City. He knew what he was doing before he even left to run the Olympics and it showed due to the fact he knew about an obscure law that permits people to live out of state for various reasons but still reside in the state legally under a domicile law, which basically says that your legal address is still an address in Massachusetts.
Now in his campaign for president, he has done something similar in nature by using his summer home in New Hampshire on the banks of Lake Winnipesauke as a way to gain an advantage in the state, by saying that he is one of them due to his home there, which is a tactic that a native of a specific locality would use to gain local support for their ventures.
Now he has moved past the trying pulling the wool over people in areas where he owns a home, he has moved into the realm of the official nominee of the political party even though the party hasn’t had its convention yet to give support to the one candidate that they feel can win. He has shown that he is cocky enough to go straight for the photo-op and point out what he calls a success for his governorship in Massachusetts, even though he had no control over some of the initiatives or forced the initiatives down the throats of the people that it effected whether they wanted it as he had written it or not.
Mitt Romney has also taken to attack ads on the democratic front runners instead of the other republicans who he is currently running against. This shows a great amount of cockiness due to the fact he is acting as if he feels he has the republican nomination in the bag and doesn’t feel that the other republicans are a real challenge to him getting into the White House.
He appears to be trying to position himself to look better to the people who don’t know his record as a politician in regards to what his platform has been in the past versus what he has done after he used that platform to get to where he wanted. He has run for office stating he held views that pertained to one side of an issue whether it be political or religious, then doing an about face after getting what he wanted. In what could be viewed as an overly simplistic interpretation of his actions, he played the groups who offered the most potential for electing a candidate to political office rather than running on his own beliefs.
From my perspective he tends to talk to people in a way that suggests that he thinks he is better than they are, especially when it comes to talking about politics. He tends to keep saying “What I have done”, “what I am doing”, and “what I intend on doing” which may not be phrased exactly like that but close enough to show some arrogance on his part. Even though he was governor of the state I live in, I never met him but from what I have seen of him on T.V. he tends to talk down to people in a manner that would suggest that he believes that he knows what is best for you which showed when he forced the laws regarding health insurance in Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney may have had the best of intentions when pushing the legislation pertaining to health insurance but in the end he didn’t really look after the people who needed it the most which were children for which there is a loop hole basically stating that everyone eighteen and over is required to have health insurance even if it is state sponsored. It also penalizes the people who legitimately cannot afford to have it due to their salary and cost of living expenses.
He had been presented with evidence in an open forum on a Boston Television station that a family even with health coverage offered by the mothers work, the family could not afford the insurance and would not be able to afford the state sponsored insurance due to the fact that the father was disabled and had a fixed income while the mother worked full time to supplement their income. The family showed how much the family made monthly, and what they paid out monthly in bills along with the remaining money after all bills were paid with no extras. He basically stated that they would qualify for the state sponsored insurance but when the premiums came out it was still more than they could afford.
Now in his campaign for president, he has done something similar in nature by using his summer home in New Hampshire on the banks of Lake Winnipesauke as a way to gain an advantage in the state, by saying that he is one of them due to his home there, which is a tactic that a native of a specific locality would use to gain local support for their ventures.
Now he has moved past the trying pulling the wool over people in areas where he owns a home, he has moved into the realm of the official nominee of the political party even though the party hasn’t had its convention yet to give support to the one candidate that they feel can win. He has shown that he is cocky enough to go straight for the photo-op and point out what he calls a success for his governorship in Massachusetts, even though he had no control over some of the initiatives or forced the initiatives down the throats of the people that it effected whether they wanted it as he had written it or not.
Mitt Romney has also taken to attack ads on the democratic front runners instead of the other republicans who he is currently running against. This shows a great amount of cockiness due to the fact he is acting as if he feels he has the republican nomination in the bag and doesn’t feel that the other republicans are a real challenge to him getting into the White House.
He appears to be trying to position himself to look better to the people who don’t know his record as a politician in regards to what his platform has been in the past versus what he has done after he used that platform to get to where he wanted. He has run for office stating he held views that pertained to one side of an issue whether it be political or religious, then doing an about face after getting what he wanted. In what could be viewed as an overly simplistic interpretation of his actions, he played the groups who offered the most potential for electing a candidate to political office rather than running on his own beliefs.
From my perspective he tends to talk to people in a way that suggests that he thinks he is better than they are, especially when it comes to talking about politics. He tends to keep saying “What I have done”, “what I am doing”, and “what I intend on doing” which may not be phrased exactly like that but close enough to show some arrogance on his part. Even though he was governor of the state I live in, I never met him but from what I have seen of him on T.V. he tends to talk down to people in a manner that would suggest that he believes that he knows what is best for you which showed when he forced the laws regarding health insurance in Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney may have had the best of intentions when pushing the legislation pertaining to health insurance but in the end he didn’t really look after the people who needed it the most which were children for which there is a loop hole basically stating that everyone eighteen and over is required to have health insurance even if it is state sponsored. It also penalizes the people who legitimately cannot afford to have it due to their salary and cost of living expenses.
He had been presented with evidence in an open forum on a Boston Television station that a family even with health coverage offered by the mothers work, the family could not afford the insurance and would not be able to afford the state sponsored insurance due to the fact that the father was disabled and had a fixed income while the mother worked full time to supplement their income. The family showed how much the family made monthly, and what they paid out monthly in bills along with the remaining money after all bills were paid with no extras. He basically stated that they would qualify for the state sponsored insurance but when the premiums came out it was still more than they could afford.
Monday, June 11, 2007
a political letter of mine Published in 2004
The following letter is mine that was published in the Boston Edition of Metro on september 27, 2004.
During this political campaign, all we have to choose from is a person that appears to be a liar and a person that appears to flip-flop on issues. One of my co-workers told me not to listen to any politics at all. I ended up telling him if I want to vote I must listento what they are saying. I also told my co-worker that the presidential candidates don't want you to lishen to what they have to say; all they want you to hear is "vote for me."
What I don't understand is that both candidates are obsessed with the war on terror and what happened during the vietnam era. The media is feeding those obsessions and not forcing the candidates to say anything on record that would show where they stand.
All of the media outlets should stop feeding into what the presidential candidates want you to hear and take a stand. What I mean by that is, they should make a more concerted effort to show what issues the candidates stand for and then try to match the statements to how they have handled themselves on those same issues in their respective offices.
-----------
it is now 2007, it may be early yet in the presidential campaign but the last paragraph in the above letter is as relevant as three years ago at this time.
During this political campaign, all we have to choose from is a person that appears to be a liar and a person that appears to flip-flop on issues. One of my co-workers told me not to listen to any politics at all. I ended up telling him if I want to vote I must listento what they are saying. I also told my co-worker that the presidential candidates don't want you to lishen to what they have to say; all they want you to hear is "vote for me."
What I don't understand is that both candidates are obsessed with the war on terror and what happened during the vietnam era. The media is feeding those obsessions and not forcing the candidates to say anything on record that would show where they stand.
All of the media outlets should stop feeding into what the presidential candidates want you to hear and take a stand. What I mean by that is, they should make a more concerted effort to show what issues the candidates stand for and then try to match the statements to how they have handled themselves on those same issues in their respective offices.
-----------
it is now 2007, it may be early yet in the presidential campaign but the last paragraph in the above letter is as relevant as three years ago at this time.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The presidential candidates on debating
Each of the presidential candidates instead of grandstanding and belittling what others have done should be focused on actually debating each other on the issues that are currently relevant to the voters that they are trying to woo. Each candidate needs to actually stick to the facts on each issue in regards to how each candidate including themselves has handled the personal and political aspects of the issue when it comes to how they intend on dealing with each specific issue.
Each candidate should also submit to a survey that is specific to each issue that they are likely to face during the campaigning and the debates and put the answers in an easy to read document format that is also easily accessible to the public. Each question should be written so that way there can not be any straight forward yes or no answers only commentary in their own words and also be designed not to allow the candidates to omit their views on each issue and how to handle the issues.
The questions should be something like these if not these specific questions:
- Explain your stance on education and explain how you intend on dealing with bringing our education system up to par with the other countries within the industrialized world?
- Explain your stance on “the war on terror” and how you intend on dealing with the legal aspect of it when it comes to not infringing on the legal protections in the constitution and keeping in line with international rules of engagement regarding terrorist cells?
- Explain your stance on abortion and how you would handle abortion rights given the fact that women will seek them out even if Roe V. Wade is over turned?
- Explain your stance on stem cell research, more specifically embryonic stem cell research and how you would handle federal funding for it?
- Explain your stance on gay rights with emphasis on gay marriage given that on a technical stand point the government doesn’t have any legislation prohibiting it and how you will handle it?
With knowing Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, explain your view on how much or how little of a role religious doctrine which includes ones personal religious beliefs, should play in American politics and why you feel that way? - Explain your stance on taxes, more specifically income taxes with regard to where and when to give tax breaks along with where and when to raise taxes in the different income brackets and why you think they work best where you would like the tax breaks or increased income taxes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
