|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, January 24, 2008, 4:34 PM
Sun Endorsements '08
Our picks in the February 5 Democratic and Republican primaries
|
|
by Editorial Staff
| We think the presidential races this season have been the most interesting in years because of a colorful cast of characters and actual suspense about who will eventually prevail.
The most remarkable thing about the Democratic field is that the nominee is almost certainly going to be a woman or a black man.
JOHN EDWARDS has from the beginning laid out the most detailed vision of what he thinks our country should stand for, what he believes is wrong and what he would do about it. He has been the only candidate who speaks in detail about our increasingly polarized society where the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and the middle class is left behind. He seems to actually understand and care that the power in our democracy continues to shift from institutions responsible to average Americans to large multinational, predatory corporations. He admits his mistake in voting to authorize force in Iraq and calls for reasserting U.S. moral leadership in the world based on our founding principles as opposed to sheer military force. Paul Krugman calls his health care plan a "smart, serious proposal." He's a big step ahead of the others in laying out a detailed approach that actually would bring about positive change.
HILLARY CLINTON is a smart and experienced person. She is probably least likely to make a major misstep in the general election. A reprise of the Clinton years sans sex scandals looks pretty good after seven years of George Bush. And we believe that finally electing a woman president might have all sorts of beneficial effects in our society. What we're not so happy about is her votes on Iraq and her unwillingness to admit a mistake at any point. She says she was misled. How could a brilliant person such as her be misled when more than 20 other Senators and lots of other thoughtful observers weren't? Of these candidates, she also appears to be most closely aligned with the same big corporate interests that Edwards takes on, as was her husband, if you look at many of his appointments to agencies such as the Federal Trade, Communications and Energy Regulatory Commissions, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission. While she understands that there is a broad-based desire for change in the country, and is running as the candidate with the knowledge and skills to create change, it's not as believable that she will really shake things up. Finally, we have concerns about her connecting with people in the personal way a leader must to lead effectively.
BARACK OBAMA has the ability to deliver inspirational speeches at times and to connect with people, particularly younger people, in an impressive way. His rhetoric is about change and about uniting people and overcoming partisan strife. He has lots of good things to say about big-picture issues. His ethnicity, his relative youth and his short time on the national radar all define him as a change candidate before he says anything. The other side of his attractive, fresh energy is that he is more of an unknown and more difficult to predict as a policymaker. A look at his Senate votes, as rated by interest groups that track Congress, shows that he is generally more progressive than Clinton. He has League of Conservation Voters (environmental) ratings of 95 percent and 100 percent compared to Clinton's 95 percent and 71 percent. His Citizens for Tax Justice (progressive tax policy) rating is 100 compared to Clinton's 80. They both get 93s from AFL-CIO. Peace groups give him a slightly higher rating than Clinton--about the same as Dianne Feinstein but much lower than Barbara Boxer. Their overall Americans for Democratic Action ratings are both in the 95 to 100 range. For more detailed information about him and other candidates go online to Project Vote Smart and investigate for yourself.
If you believe Obama's politics of hope and you believe he can withstand the attacks and other challenges of a general election, then he is a logical choice. If you trust experience and smarts, and are OK with moderate change, Hillary Clinton has what it takes to withstand a general election campaign and become the first woman president. If you want to vote for someone who clearly describes how he would shake up our vested interest system and seems to believe it, and you're not concerned about voting for someone who won't be the nominee, Edwards is the guy. We like Obama's ability to inspire, his appeal to young voters and his message of hope and change. We want to believe that he can deliver.
WE SUPPORT OBAMA.
The Republicans field has stubbornly refused to narrow, except in the political philosophy of the candidates. Leaving out Ron Paul, they have all basically endorsed Bush's Iraq policy, though McCain quibbles more with the tactics than the others. Giuliani has taken a libertarian states-rights position on abortion. The others oppose Roe vs. Wade and are anti-abortion.
MIKE HUCKABEE is your guy if you are an evangelical and would like to see Christianity become a greater part of our government.
MITT ROMNEY is the candidate of flexible positions which appear subject to change as the need arises. He has tried to be a lot of different things to different audiences, but his pro-war, anti-choice, pro big corporation approach to policy shines through.
FRED THOMPSON appeared to have star power and ability to appeal to the Republican base but apparently is an exceptionally poor campaigner. Now we know one of the reasons why he took so long to formally announce.
RUDY GIULIANI became a national hero after 9/11. He's also made millions as a speaker cashing in on his 9/11 fame. How do firefighters feel about him? The International Association of Firefighters is sending former New York City fire fighters and family members of fire fighters who died on September 11 to Florida to follow him as he campaigns in the state. IAFF says the "Fire Brigade" will "expose Giuliani's trumped-up 9/11 credentials as a myth." Giuliani is positioned in this primary as the moderate. However, he has spent less energy distancing himself from Bush during the campaign than most of the other candidates and says Bush has gotten most of the big things right. He has support from many Bush's backers, including key supporters of the "Swift Boat" campaign against John Kerry who have set up "Stop Her Now" to thwart Hillary Clinton. Giuliani's tough-guy mayor credentials haven't played well so far--coming off more as a prince of darkness.
JOHN MCCAIN at the time of this writing seems to have the momentum. There are some things to like about him. He does have a compelling personal story. He has an independent streak and tacks against the prevailing winds of his own party from time to time. He was a champion of campaign finance reform and regularly attacks pork barrel spending. However, some of his high profile positions obscure his overall record. He is solidly anti-choice and gets zeros from Planned Parenthood. While he opposes drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and understands the need for action on climate change, his most recent League of Conservation Voters rating was 29 percent. He is a strident hawk, says our current Iraq policy is working and famously joked about bombing Iran. He has opposed gun control measures. He gets high marks from conservative groups and has had 10 and 15 percent ratings from ADA in the past couple of years. While respected for his integrity, he is also known for outbursts of anger. He would be 72 years old when sworn in. We think he would probably be the strongest Republican in a general election.
RON PAUL, the physician and veteran House member from Texas, is a year older than John McCain. His mostly libertarian approach is appealing for its relative consistency. While we're not believers in a true isolationist approach to foreign policy, which is where Paul comes down, it has its appeal when compared to our country's repeated misadventures in other countries and their ongoing ripples of unintended consequences. Ron Paul would bring American troops home not just from Iraq, but from every other country where they are stationed as well. He also votes against funding for the United Nations and opposed GATT, WTO and NAFTA. When he talks about low taxes and small government, he doesn't mean only low taxes for large corporations and small government for the aged, poor and vulnerable. He voted against the Patriot Act because of his belief in small government and individual freedom. Unfortunately his small government approach doesn't keep government out of the bedroom or out of conversations with your doctor. He's anti-choice and wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He would end income tax and the IRS. He also votes against gun control. He gets low ratings from environmental groups, but his approach causes him to oppose government subsidized logging in national forests. Ron Paul's orientation is where a lot people think a true conservative should be--as opposed to the modern Republican party which is composed of too many who are conservative on spending for social welfare but write blank checks to large corporations and the military-industrial complex; who say they support personal freedom, but want to restrict personal liberties. Paul is treated as an afterthought by national media even though he finished ahead of Giuliani in Iowa and Michigan and beat everyone except Romney in Nevada.
IN THIS FIELD, WE LIKE RON PAUL.
For the Sun's other election recommendations, go here: pacificsun.com
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Shelly, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Jan 26, 2008 at 6:58 am Thank you for your endorsement of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. He is a non-interventionist who wants to bring back our troops and our Constitution. The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated by George Bush and Congress. No more habeas corpus, due process, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, protection from cruel and unusual punishment. The Congress has created an America where people can be tortured, their property seized, and there is a presumption of guilt if they say you are guilty. We need to repeal the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the Homegrown Terror Act. We need to get rid of NAFTA and Eminent Domain. Stand up for your rights!
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Santa Venetia neighborhood, on Jan 26, 2008 at 10:10 am A minor correction: you say that "Giuliani has taken a libertarian states-rights position on abortion." This is also Ron Paul's position. Although Paul personally is against abortion (perhaps he differs from Giuliani in this respect), he does not think the Federal government should be involved at all in allowing or prohibiting abortion.
You failed to mention the upcoming National ID card. Many people are concerned that these might be a significant invasion of personal privacy. Ron Paul is the only candidate you mention who is opposed to the National ID card.
|
|
Posted by Peter, a resident of the Terra Linda neighborhood, on Jan 26, 2008 at 10:16 am Kudos for endorsing Dr. Paul's Republican Primary candidacy. A few points of clarification are in order though:
Dr. Paul is very much in favor of gay rights; your statement that he would not keep "government out of the bedroom" wrongly implies the opposite.
Although Dr. Paul is pro-life, he believes this issue is best left to the states, not the Federal government. Accordingly, he is unlikely to limit choice while in Federal office.
Dr. Paul's no nonsense anti-war position trumps all other issues. The US government must stop bullying other countries first and foremost. Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist, which is a very different animal. Our domestic issues are important too, but let's not lose our global priorities.
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2008 at 1:41 pm "Dr. Paul's no nonsense anti-war position trumps all other issues."
Actually no, it doesn't. I admire Ron Paul for being willing to take some unpopular (within his party) stances and for injecting some much-needed dissent into the Republican field. But this love affair some on the left seem to have with him solely because of his anti-Iraq war stance is misguided to say the least.
Paul is staunchly anti-gov't across the board and has said he would dismantle the Department of Education and Social Security, privatizing both. He is pro-gun and anti-choice. Even his war stance is born of an isolationist philosophy that is all wrong for an increasingly globalized world.
If you're a hard-core libertarian with a Christian morality streak who believes in handing most public agencies over to the private sector and taking a withdrawn, nationalistic, unilateral stance in world affairs, then Paul is your man.
Otherwise, he should be viewed for what he is: a fringe wacko who has managed to build a loyal, vocal following but whose election would be disaster for the United States.
Okay, Paul-ettes...fire away.
|
|
Posted by Gary Jenkks, a resident of the Greenbrae neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2008 at 11:47 am Totally agree, Steve. "Dr. Paul" as his supporters call him (sounds like a cult leader) is a Texas-sized wack job. Just because he opposes the war doesn't make him some kind of hero or visionary. He knows he can't win, so there's no risk in taking controversial stances that alienate him in his own party. He's already alienated, and thank the Lord. I don't want to see any Repub in the White House, but I'd probably like to see Paul least of all.
|
|
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I personally am hoping that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee and Barack Obama will be the one for the Dems.
This way Romney will no-doubt win the election and possibly choose Guiliani as his Vice Pres.
Since I'm not a liberal, that is my take on it. It's my personal preference.
But of all the Dem. nominees, I do like Obama the best. Although his claim the other night of promising to "end climate change" did make me laugh a little (how would he propose to do that?!) I do believe he is the sanest Democrat out there at the moment.
I hope Hillary will be wiped out of the contest altogether. Come on America! (or at least Marin!) The Clintons were a disgrace to the White House. I liked them at first but when Clinton came on TV and denied his liaison with Monica Lewinsky and then went back on and admitted it, I lost faith. I remember him going on TV more than once and zigzagging on the story. What a fool!
And then with the first bombing of the WTC, Clinton was in office at the time and sat on his hands and did nothing. He even had an opportunity to get Bin Laden and he did nothing. People forget that.
I'm amazed that the Clintons are even still in the limelight.
So I am hoping for Romney for sure. I'm sure this will draw rave reviews from the Sun readers.
|
|
Posted by Pam, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2008 at 8:49 am That Paul, a wack job, looks so good in the Republican primary says more about the field than him. At least he would not be likely to get 10s of thousands of people killed and further erode our personal freedoms, which is not the case with McCain and the others. McCain looks pretty good in the context of this field. But he is 100% anti-choice, likes Bush's Supreme Court appointments, would be a disaster for the environment (except with climate change), thinks mega corporations need more tax breaks and power and is maybe the biggest hawk in the field -- biggest defender of the Iraq invasiona and sees committing more troops to foreign ventures as a fine way to conduct foreign policy.
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2008 at 1:35 pm I agree with you about the Republican field, Pam, but I still think you have to be careful about saying Paul's the best just because he wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq.
His isolationist, anti-gov't stances would gut our system of social services and public education and further alienate us in a world that has to unite. I hope none of thse clowns wins, but I wouldn't rather have Paul than anyone.
|
|
Posted by Gerald, a resident of the Belvedere neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2008 at 2:35 pm Steve, your comments about Dr. Paul clearly show you don't know what you're talking about. Dr. Paul is in favor of cutting government waste, yes, and eliminating the pork that is clogging the arteries of our public system. But he's not "anti government." He's pro-reform.
He's also a defender of personal and civil liberty here at home. He's pro-life, yes, but also anti-death penalty so he's at least consistent there unlike some hypocrites who want to save fetuses but kill grownups. And, yes, he's anti-war something you may not see as all that important but that for many of us is THE ISSUE this time around. He's a maverick in the truest sense, and I respect that.
You can disagree, but to call him a "wacko" as you and others have done is just so many kinds of wrong.
|
|
Posted by Shelly, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2008 at 8:11 am Steve in Fairfax, you don't know what you are talking about. Congressman Ron Paul never said he would privatize education. Education cannot be a function of the federal government. The 10th Amendment doesn't allow it.
The "No Child Left Behind" Act increased the budget of the Department of Education by 68%, yet our schools are still underfunded, and our children are being tested at age 6 incessantly in order for their schools to be funded by the American taxpayers; and what little they get depends on the "performance" of our 6 year olds. The kids are truly "taught to the test," and art, science, music, P.E. and computers are considered extras. Kids need to have a well-rounded education. We need to cut this bureaucratic department OUT of the budget and fund our local and state governments instead. 2007 - 2008 is going to be a very tough year for California's schools, and frankly the federal government is screwing us.
California has long been shackled by the rest of the country. We need to eliminate the income tax, taking Congress' blank check away, and give our money to California instead, so that we may fix our roads, bridges, schools, and keep our fire departments and 911 services.
States' rights means that what we voters decide would be law; for example, California overwhelmingly passed the Medicinal Marijuana laws, and the federal government is still harassing cancer patients. Hawaii passed gay marriage rights, and the federal government said it would amend the Constitution if necessary to prevent Hawaiians from having the rights they voted for. This is not democracy, it is dictatorship. I don't want some lifetime politician telling me what to do! This is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, not against the people. Something is terribly awry, and no one seems to notice except the "Paulites."
So Steve, you and your ilk will once again elect the least inspiring, most mediocre president money can buy; and you will get what you voted for. Wake up, Dude.
|
|
Posted by Laurie durnell, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2008 at 7:43 am Disappointed I couldn't find any information about the propositions in your endorsements segment.
|
|
Posted by Diane, a resident of another community, on Feb 4, 2008 at 8:22 am So Obama connects better with people than Hillary? Ask the people of New York and I think you will find that is false.
|
|
Posted by Editor, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2008 at 8:55 am Note to Laurie: The Sun's state proposition recommendations were in the January 11 issue. You can find them online by clicking on Previous Editions at the bottom of the home page and going to that issue or directly here: Web Link
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2008 at 1:21 pm Shelly,
I think it's you who needs to "wake up."
Did you know that in his home district in Texas, Paul is known as the "king of pork" because of all the $$$ he brings in to butter up his constituents? Not that this is unique to "Dr. Paul" but it's a bit ironic given that he's running as the guy who will "cut the fat."
I too am opposed to No Child Left Behind and the federally mandated tests that come along with it. But that doesn't mean we should abolish the Dep't of Education. That's like saying we should dismantle the Armed Forces because the war in Iraq is a mess. Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water.
While I agree that in some cases--medical marijuana is a good example--there needs to be a stronger emphasis on state's rights (that used to be a Republican issue), The federal government has the potential to do a lot of good; it just needs a leadership group with the right kind of ideas.
The typical Republican Administration, especially post-Reagan, comes in with a self-fulfilling (and self-defeating) prophesy: They say big gov't doesn't work, then proceed to prove it with their incompetence. Maverick though eh may be, I am not convinced "Dr. Paul" would be any different.
|
|
Posted by April, a resident of another community, on Feb 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm Ron Paul is a dangerous choice for president and is not what this country needs, now or at any other time. This country needs to improve it's image in the world and Ron Paul would not do that given his isolationist views. This country would go backward, not forward, if he is elected.
I feel Obama is the best choice for our next President!
|
|
Posted by Amy, a resident of the Forest Knolls neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2008 at 9:06 pm There is no doubt in my mind that either of the two democrats represent me far better than any of the republicans when it comes to foreign affairs, the supreme court, health care, immigration, tax reform, and economic priorities. As a registered Democrat I will vote for Obama because of his vote against the invasion of Iraq, and what that says about his priorities. That doesn't mean that he is my ideal president--Cynthia McKinney comes closest to that.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
