Politics, News & Issues >
Presidential Elections 2008
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWhich party is better suited for the White House in '09: Democrat or Republican?
Results so far:
| Democrat | 63% | 253 votes | Total: 402 votes | |
| Republican | 37% | 149 votes |
Democrat
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesCan there be any doubt? Republican fiscal policy has trashed our economy, and the global economy in the bargain. Republican international policy has trashed our relationships with our allies. Republican terrorism policy has reduced civil liberties at home, contravened the Geneva Convention in favor of torture, and made Grandpa take his shoes off at the airport. Republican war policy has allowed Osama Bin Laden to live, and spun our military into acting out a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. And in case you haven't been keeping up with current events, in a time of national financial crisis Republican campaign policy wants to smear their opponent rather than discuss the critical issues of our time.
It's a remarkable development in our society that campaigning Republicans would embrace the cynical view that there are enough Americans who believe what they hear without fact-checking or thinking to turn an election in their favor on the basis of sensational lies about their opponent. "Swift boating" as a last-ditch campaign strategy is perfectly OK with the Republican constituency, and this desperation to avoid issues and thoughtful dialogue is proof in itself that Republicans are not suited to be in the White House in 2009. If Republican policy were relevant to the difficulties America now faces, Republicans would be talking about that. But they're not. Because their policies led to this mess.
America needs more then manipulative, Machiavellian cynicism right now. Our media gives as much time to the screaming face, spraying vituperation and twisted disinformation, as it gives to the thoughtful, independent critical thinker. But America needs thoughtful, critical thinking right now. If character-assassinat ion is the best that the Republican campaign can manage to counteract the bald-faced, proven insufficiencies of Republican policy, it must be seen for what it is: an admission of insufficiency and inabilty to address the issues of this time.
Consider the economy. Republicans support de-regulation of financial markets. "Swap" agreements, as documented by 60 Minutes on CBS on October 5, 2008 - in an incisive, to-the-bone revelation - are unregulated, bogus, unbacked "insurance" policies paid for by financial institutions who bought large numbers of crappy high-risk mortgages from mortgage-bundlers. The bottom line here is this: these unregulated instruments, along with the cupidity and greed of their purchasers, have caused a $62 trillion red-ink shortfall for financial institutions in America and abroad, and are at the epicenter of the current economic upheaval. Let me say it one more time. These instruments were not regulated. These instruments caused the economic crisis America is facing today. Republicans support deregulation as an integral policy. Do you think such a policy should be represented in the White House in 2009?
For eight years Republican policy has failed America. The preponderance of evidence supporting that fact is boggling. The party best suited to remedy the Republican-based dimunition of America's strength at home and around the world is the Democratic party. They belong in the White House in 2009.
Learn more about this author, Robert Griffith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Republican
My Constitutional Vote
I'm horrified! I'm scared beyond belief! Have Americans simply forgotten that we are not under a dictatorship? Are we really and truly blaming George Bush for the global financial crisis? Are we so desperate for help that we will consider selling out to another Democrat politician who wants to institute socialization, and lead us toward a path of government reliance?
Where is our dignity? Where is our pride? Have we forgotten who we are completely? Yes, George Bush is our current president. I'll give him that. However, he did not fly planes into the Twin Towers in 2001. He did not instigate suicide bombers on a global scale to wage a war on terrorism. He answered them, and America is paying quite a hefty price for it, both in dollars and soldiers. But Bush is not solely to blame for the state of our country.
How can anyone honestly claim that Republicans are solely responsible for the economic crisis? Are they the ones who graciously accepted the bailout (AIG), and then took their executives on a $440,000 trip to unwind at taxpayer expense? Are they the ones who signed off on millions of dollars in severance packages for sleazy business executives who don't think twice about keeping their ill gained funds? Should we hold them responsible for not being able to see into the future, and realize that Americans were getting ripped off by greedy corporations who took advantage of their opportunities to get rich?
America has a constitution that protects against anyone trying to overtake the rights of the people. There are seven valuable principles in our constitution that ensure American people get their voices heard: Popular Sovereignty, Republicanism, Federalism, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Limited Government, and Individual Rights.
Based on these principles, we have a government that is by the people and for the people. This is what Popular Sovereignty means. In the Pledge of Allegiance, we state, "and to the Republic for which it stands" referring to Republicanism. Republicanism is the principle that allows us to vote for who and what we think is right. Federalism refers to how we organize as a government. We organize from larger to smaller government. Our larger government oversees the welfare of the entire nation, while our smaller government allows for individual states and cities to create their own laws as deemed appropriate for their needs.
America cannot have a super power. Based on the principle of Separation of Powers in our constitution, we have a system of Checks and Balances. No one can do anything without going through the proper process, allowing all things to be considered by several members or groups. The government is therefore limited by the people.
The principle of Limited Government recently showed itself very clearly. Our congressmen voted against the first bailout largely because they were flooded with letters from scared citizens who warned against it. They in turn respected our rights and privileges to be heard, choosing to protect our liberty.
Obama speaks of creating larger government to help all American citizens. Tell me how his ideas to enlarge government will help me pay my credit card bills. The bills I'm referring to were run up to pay for astronomical health care fees, and basic necessities. I might have had enough money to avoid paying for this, except my local government needed to raise taxes in the name of helping everyone. Because of this, my individual income went down, my food and clothing bill got higher, my gas tax got extended, and I'm the one who ended up sacrificing to help the rest of American citizens, all caught in the same trap.
We definitely need a change in government. What we don't need is more government to get that change. What we don't need is a big blanket to take care of everyone, as opposed to opportunity that will enable individuals to take care of themselves. I don't ever want to give up my voice as an American citizen in the name of the greater good. I don't want to deny the importance of a constitution that protects certain inalienable rights, in the name of paying bills created by those seeking to take advantage of my ability to make an honest living.
I'm all for participating in educating our children and improving our environment. I just don't think I need to contribute close to half of my hard earned paycheck to do it. On that note, I'm voting for less government and more experience! I'm also voting for seven basic principles that help my voice not only get heard, but implemented. Certainly in this election, the choice is obvious. Go McCain/Palin!
Learn more about this author, M. J. Joachim.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Presidential Elections 2008
- Who won the second presidential debate, McCain or Obama?
- Should the next President raise taxes or cut programs to help pay off the national debt?
- Who won the third presidential debate, Obama or McCain?
- Who would make a better US president?
- Do you think that the next US president should meet with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions?
- Should fighting climate change be a priority to the next President?
