Ponderings...

[izixs]

Before I get to this month's general election prediction, I decided to look into candidates a bit. As I do have left leaning political philosophy I decided to forgoe getting angry and stuck with the democrats for my support search. So I've gotten my first feel of the candidates from their websites now. I believe my current preferences are as such

Comments

[chiashurb]

In general:
I think you place too much emphasis in your analysis on "the issues." I used to be solely an issues voter, and still am to some extent. But the problem is twofold: first, stated positions on issues don't tell you which positions are most important to the candidate--when s/he has to trade any possibility of progress on one issue for some movement on another, what will the candidate do? Bill Clinton, the president who ran on a pro-LGBT-rights platform long before it was politically acceptable to do so, created Don't Ask Don't Tell (which I admit sounded like a legitimate compromise at the time), and signed DOMA.

The second problem with overemphasis of issues is that in a 4 to 8 year Presidential term, unexpected issues come up. Nobody was asking GW in 2000 what he would do if an international terrorist organization destroyed two skyscrapers, killed 3,000 people in the blink of an eye, and brought the City of New York to its knees. Nobody had any way of knowing to ask that question. Turns out 9/11 became the focus of the Bush II presidency.

My resolution: I want to know a candidate's platform, but I also need to feel comfortable with that candidate's character. Evidence of character includes past policymaking, explanations of changed positions, and the ability to articulate a position at all on important issues. (Senator Clinton, why did you vote to authorize the war in Iraq?) It also includes the candidate's deportment on the campaign trail and while in prior office.

That's why I will not even contemplate supporting Vilsack--he was a lousy governor. He couldn't work with the Republican legislature, and while he blames them for the massive higher education cuts, he sent them budgets with those cuts in them and refused to negotiate when they suggested that there might be a way to restore some higher education funding.

John Edwards I surprise myself to be considering at this time. I need to do more research, but I've heard some very good things about the poverty work that he did in the past four years. He still supports the death penalty, though, and that's a big problem for me--especially after Gonzales' decision that the United States Attorneys will seek the death penalty whenever it is available.

Kucinich looks far less radical now than he did four years ago. Why do you call him "a fool and an asshat?"

[izixs]

This exploration was just my first look at the candidate's stances, and is by no means a settle run down. I still probably won't for Vilsack despite his current high ranking on me list and now that you remind me of his budget tricks I probably should of put him a couple rungs furthur down.

As for Kucinich, there's two things. The first (the fool part) was some of his really puzzeling slip ups. Remember when he brought in a chart to show everyone... at a radio debate. The asshat part comes from testimony from a fellow I know who actually hails from Kucinich's district. Dennis was making all sorts of promises that he's running for reelection just to represent his district and has no higher aspirations last election season, as apparantly that was on the biggest critisicsm he was getting. (Clinton was doing a little of the same thing, and others to a lesser extent) His speed then of jumping in, without much pushing if there was any, was quite quick. Another sign of foolery was his Iowa deal with Edwards which didn't make any damn sense. If one is actually going to stand on principle as he continues to be basing his campaign on (mainly being against the war) then why offer up assistance to a candidate who at the time was still supportive of the conflict and not advocating for withdraw at that point? Tis a political move, but completely tosses out any illusions I might have that he's running to support his ideals and is running really to support himself.

[chiashurb]

What was the Iowa deal with Edwards?

[izixs]

It was that if either Edwards or Kucinich failed to have enough people in a preference group to get a delegate that one would send people over to the other to make the lacking group viable provided the larger group had enough people to do so. There was likely more to it than that as I think it may have also had a condition that if one group couldn't be made viable that they would join the larger group to try to get a second delegate there. But in practice it seems Kucinich came out the sucker of the deal with edwards coming in a strong second and he like 5thish. 1. Its unwise to try to play these kinds of games with a candidate who has a noticably larger base of support (but not an out right majority then they'd have the bodies to spare) thus if Edward's people tried to honor the deal in reality Kucinich didn't come out the better for it, and 2. It would of been wiser to make such a deal with the other candidates who were not expected to get above 5% in Iowa (clark, lieberman, sharpton, mosely-braun before she dropped out) as then a sound deal would of had then getting any delegates for sure in general and in the cases where Kucinich's crew couldn't bolster the other weaker candidates, he would have a chance to get delegates as well. Making such a deal with the clark people would of been the best idea actually as Clark did have plenty of Iowa supporters, but his campaign didn't seem to want to have to deal with the crazyness of the caucus. If instead of sending his people to the Kerry camp (which kind of doomed everyone but Kerry in the end), he had sent them to Kucinich, he could of made Dean weaker position wise, and not bolster any candidate that would threaten to take the front runner status elsewhere. It would of turned the race more into a toss up giving Clark a better chance at actually getting looked at later outside of Oklahoma. Because if these guys are having trouble with Kucinich suddenly having support, who else could the non-Kucinich positioned dems look to? And of course Kucinich would get credibility out of the deal and suddenly there's a non-Dean anti-war candidate for those whom don't want to support a military man to support who might actually have a chance at winning.

So sloppy strategy, unwise moves, on Rep K's part there.