Aug 22, 2007

Barack, Paul, and Romney

These are my favorite candidates for the presidency. THe funny thing is, they're all idealogically very different.

Barack is a Dem, one might say a radical Dem, except we really don't know what sort of Dem he is because he seems to be going in a direction that nobody else has really gone. (this is the main reason why I like him).

I like him for these reasons: 1) his LACK of time spent among the more jaded politicians in Washington, his integrity regarding lobbyists, his matter-of-fact way of stating his stances, and his willingness to be open with the American people. When he talked about how becoming more energy-independent will require some sacrifices on the part of the American people, I respected him. When he mentioned that he would consider meeting with various antagonistic leaders in the middle east, I respected him. When he mentioned that, if given no other choice he would authorize Americans going into pakistan after high-profile terrorists that have threatened the US, I respected him. Want to know why? All the other Dems would do the same thing, they just don't want to say so right now. Barack isn't going to fudge on these issues, he's going to be blunt and honest. Good sign, I say.

Mitt is a true, died-in-the-wool republican. He's pretty much the party-line toer out of all the republican candidates.

The reasons why I like him: He is a creative, flexible politician with the genius and experience that could help in the solving of several of our major problems right now: the economy, the war, and health care. And I love his health care plan-- keeping it free-market, but requiring everyone to have it. This will require insurance companies to cover those who they normally would not cover, and therefore, the rights and special needs of vulnerable groups will become a higher priority with them. The war has been mismanaged, and I agree with Mitt that we must stay in Iraq until things are more stable (if such a thing is possible.) We should never have gone it, but we can't just pull out without doing significant damage to our own national security as well as the security and safety of the region. Mitt's always been a brainstormer, willing to consider alternatives that others haven't thought of. In our foreign policy more than anywhere else we need some new, innovative ideas. I believe that, out of all the candidates, Mitt could come up with these.

Ron Paul is, for all intents and purposes, a Libertarian. But he's running as a republican this year. His platform is based around Limiting the federal government's power over the individual, something that badly needs doing right now. He's against the war in Iraq for all the right reasons. He advocated going into Afghanistan for all the right reasons. He wants to leave iraq and the middle east, pull all our troops out, and enter into a dialogue and trading relationship rather than a domineering, military-enforced one. I agree wholeheartedly... as soon as we can safely get out of Iraq. This is where Paul and I diverge... I think we need to stay for a while, he wants out ASAP.

All good men. All men who are campaigning based upon their own, real beliefs, and all unafraid to stand up and say what they think. (Or at least, that's my opinion.)


Sherpa said...

The thing about Obama is that we've had two presidents who were inexperienced at the presidential level and the country suffered as they were learning the ins and outs of foreign policy. We need experience--especially now, not another inexperienced politician, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Ron Paul-I agree with about half of the things he says, but his followers are a real turnoff for me. I'm a moderator on our ward list-serv, and I've spent the past three days explaining what things are appropriate and what things are not to a diehard Ron Paul supporters. He's not the only one I've come across...they're crazy!

Janell said...

I don't like Mitt on principal that too many Mormons like Mitt. Yup, I'm that same girl in high school who didn't like the popular kids because they were popular. It's really not for any good reason, and he really hasn't said anything that's impressed me yet.

Hm. I'll have to look into Paul's opinion on wiretapping. That could win me over towards his side. There are a lot of significant technologies that will be available in the next decade or two which potentially could lead to a serious infringement of privacy. It'd be nice to have solid policies in place before issues start to arise. (My brother's opinion on this is that anyone innocent of stuff really shouldn't care, but I'm the paranoid sort who already dislikes that Google knows too much about me.)

NoSurfGirl said...

Sherpa-- I agree about being turned off by Paul's followers. I'm also just a tad turned off by Paul's own (lack of sense of humor, whatever the word for that is.) Plus I find his views bordering on too extreme for me.

Barack-- well, yes, inexperienced. I wonder though, in this race... who is experienced? Hillary? Eeeuch. For me at least. I just, well... don't trust hillary. She's been dishonest too many times.

Sigh. One thing I hope is that i won't have to vote for a 'lesser of two evils' ie hillary and giuliani. I don't really trust either of them.

Janell-- I'm pretty dang sure Paul would be against wiretapping.

Sherpa said...

Yeah, thats the real thing about Paul and his followers. They tend to be too extreme. I was trying to be a little diplomatic about it, but really they are too extreme. I'm in charge of our ward list-serv and I've gotten flack from some Paul supporters because they think I'm doing a double standard.

Inexperience. Sen. Clinton actually has the most experience of the front contendors. I'm not a fan, but she's very experienced and has thrown herself into the Senate. In her terms as Senator, she's done more than Kerry has all the time she's been in there. The Senate is one of the best breeding grounds to get the experience and she's capitalized on it. The trouble is that the American Public is too concerned about "corrupt politicians." There's got to be some balance there because we've suffered through the past two presidencies because we've had inexperienced presidents.

Lucy Stern said...

No thanks to Hillery and Obama. I would lean more towards Mitt or Paul.

NoSurfGirl said...

Yeah... I get so confused about politicians sometimes. They say one thing and do another, either because things change and we're expected to understand, or because they never intended to do what they said in the first place.

This is the one thing I hang onto with an iron grip: an honest person. A forthright person. A person who at least Means to be honest and forthright, and who really believes in what he/she stands for, who is in politics not for power or gain, but to change the world.

Am I an idealist?

Absolutely. And I intend to remain so until my death. Chuckle.