Canditates honore praesidentis

Borrowing from dKos and clst, here is how I think the two presidental candidates stack up against one another on the issues that I think are important. I'll try to be as succint as I can.

Wants to role us back to pre-New Deal, where there was no nationally subsidised healthcare. Additionally, our nations Seniors were given the shaft with the recent MediCare reforms. These discount cards aid only the pharmaceudicals.
JK: Wants to begin a national single-payer healthcare program. Update: Wants to make health-care more affordable for all Americans by lowering premiums and extending the same coverage the US Congress enjoys to all. Also, if I read the web site correctly, children are covered no matter what. (Thanks to clst for pointing this out to me!)

VJ: No brainer. Even with the update, this is still a no brainer.

Same-Sex Marriage:
Wants Congress to pass an amendment to the constitution to an same-sex marriage in the whole of the United States.
JK: Think the issue is a state's rights issue, and doesn't even deserve debate time on the floor of the Congress.

VJ: Would like to see marriage benefits extended to all loving couples. In the short-term, JK is, at least, not an obstruction from states deciding what unions they wish to recognise.

War (General):
Thinks that using the full force of the US military is the best and most effective means of extracting subservience from other nations. Does not bend the the wishes of other nations and sees kowtowing as a weakness.
JK: Also not a pacifist, but thinks that the military should be used as a last resort, not the first, and that conflicts need international support or they have no legitmacy.

VJ: I'd rather have a man who understands sacrifice be the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces. GWB, shirker; JK, decorated war hero. Do I like war? No. Do wars happen? Yes. In the event of a war, who's going to shrug off the UN, ignore our allies, and cook the evidence to support his POV? GWB. Is JK's strategy better? Yes.

War (Iraq):
Suckered Congress into his carte blanche invasion of a dastardly regime. A complacent media bought the lie hook, line, and sinker. The US wound up invading and detroying a nation that posed no threat to US security and had no part in the terrible attacks of 11 September. Additionally, terrorism rose globally as a result of this international blunder as hostile organisations found recruits in the least likeliest of places, Secular Iraq. This quagmire has cost the US its international prestige and is now having trouble justifying its actions to the world community. Furthermore, the US cannot find other countries to assist in stabilising an, in all likelihood, unstablisable Iraq.
JK: Voted in favour of this war in his capacity as a US Senator.

Fuck 'em both. JK, I don't believe you when you say you were duped. I wasn't duped, and I don't have 3 purple hearts and a Harvard degree.

Would like to continue cutting taxes that most heavily benefit the top 1% of americans, but to be fair, give a morcel of relief to the middle-class. Will, in all likelihood, continue to push the envelope of deficit spending.
JK: Would roll back the tax cuts on the top 1% of America's wealthiest, and push for further breaks for the middle-class.

VJ: Would like to see all the tax cuts rolled back and a plan of fiscal sanity foisted on the national government. Deficits ARE NOT GOOD, and I don't care if you are the guy running up his VISA or the US govt. Interest payments are passed along to you and me. I don't mind paying taxes FOR SERVICES; I do mind paying taxes to pay CREDITORS.

Military Spending:
Would raise military spending through the roof.
JK: Would do the same.

Absol-fucking-lutely no difference between the two. The money has to come from somewhere. Education, perhaps?

Plans to continue the No Child Left Behind Initiative, but in all likelihood will also continue to not fund it.
JK: Pledges to overhaul NCLB and pay our teachers the salaries they deserve.

Don't know where the money will come from for JK's plan. In all likelihood, he'll keep his military spending pledge and break the one to the teachers. But overall, I like JK's idea better. GWB wants to "starve the beast," the beast being public education. It is not a beast, and it needs to be fed. Private education, as many readers of my blog can attest to, is no panacea for social injustice.

GWB: isn't.
JK: is.


States rights:
Among the FMA, the Patriot Act, the NV nuclear waste sight, and ANWAR, this man has demonstrated that he a true federalist. The only time he acted as a state's righter was during the CA energy crisis when he refused to permit FIRC to cap energy prices.
JK: Have no fucking clue, other than he's opposed to the FMA and voted for the Patriot Act (but is not in favour of extending the sunset clauses)

VJ: I don't even know if I am a state's rights advocate. I just think that GWB did the exact opposite in each of this cases as to what I would have done.


At 8/5/04, 3:52 PM, Blogger Les said...

"Staes Rights" is a code word for "segregation." People are only interested in sate's right's to discriminate, not protect. This is evident because the Bush administration loves states rights, yet is arresting everybody having to do with medicinal marijuana. Unfortunately, political speak is often orwellian. It's states rights vs. civil rights.
Loving vs Virginia sets precident where states are not free to ignore marriages from other states, which is logical. Could you imagine going on vacation with your family. In this state: married. In that state: not married. In this state: if soemthing terrible happens, i've got rights. in that state: if something terrrible happens i'm going to need a lawyer fast.

I would be overjoyed if JK wa sin favor of universal single payer healthcare, but I can't find any evidence of it. Could you please provide a link to or speech text where he said that? My understanding of his DNC speech was that all americans ought to be able to *buy* health insurance. I mean, this is an advantage over our current system where diabetics just can't get insurance, but it's not signle payer.

At 8/5/04, 5:07 PM, Blogger Crinis said...

You're right. I can't find any reference to a "single-payer" scheme. At it says that the K/E plan will "give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child." The every child is a good thing, but do you think they'll be able to afford it with their milk money? I think the campaign needs to be even more specific here. HOW do we cover every child? And also, what does "affordable" mean?

At 8/5/04, 6:17 PM, Blogger Les said...

Who are the other 5%? If healthcare is a right, why will there still be uninsured?

why can't we just extend medicare to everybody and let folks who want to buy supplimental insurance?

At 8/5/04, 7:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as the Iraq vote, this is my take: People don't seem to realize the vote was for IF deemed necessary I have the power to go into Iraq. Not right TODAY, I will go into Iraq. I don't think he was duped, but I do think he and congress were coerced ( says coerce is "intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act"... and "Coercion is usually acomplished by indirect means, as threats and intimidation") MEaning it was post 9/11, the tension was high. The public was freaked out, a Senator who DIDN'T vote for it was going to have a lot of essplainin' ta do. Be focused on. The Rove machine was chomping at the bit to get into Iraq and chillingly didn't hesitate to manipulate the moment. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but they brilliantly made it seem so and pulled it into the mix at JUST the right time. I mean these guys are pros, it is so scary. I just hope they pro themselves into a hole (take that latest sick attack ad on Kerry) cause people like that always step on their own foot (at least Shakespeare says they do)

So in a way he was duped in my book. Karl Rove is a criminal in my book.

At 8/5/04, 7:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh that was me, Carol

At 8/11/04, 11:05 AM, Blogger Christine said...

in other news--is JK's stance on gay marriage too 'careful.' it's like he's not against it...but do we really know that he is for it. WHy can'the say "i agree with it but this it should be a state issue." or say "I'm againt it, but freedom means that people should do what they want with thier lives." I suppose I feel like he is taking the easy way out...passing the buck.
ANyone know more about what he really feels?

At 8/13/04, 10:18 AM, Blogger Crinis said...

He is, obviously, against gay marriage Christine. It isn't politically expidient to be in favour of it if one is running for the highest office in the land. To state that he is in favour of it would be political suicide.


Post a Comment

<< Home

   Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)