The Issues

I've finally started taking a look at the basic issues positions of various candidates.
CNN has a nifty little interactive deal that lets you choose an issue and get a small bit of info on all the major candidates and what their position is on an issue. They tend to include specifics on if and when the candidate's position has changed over the course of time, which is interesting.

The major stuff they cover are:
Abortion - of course, because it matters so much if a president is pro-life or pro-choice, given this office has the ability to overturn supreme court decisions. This is not an issue on which I judge any candidate.

Gun Control - For me, the more you want to control my ability to purchase fire-arms, the better. I have yet to meet anyone who really wants too much gun control. Oh, you know, own guns, fine; just not the guns that make it so easy to kill in bulk. Oh, and I'd prefer that we not give guns to crazy people, children and I dunno, felons? Seems like it would be wise to limit sales to people who have proven they tend to break the law and shoot people. Hillary wins on gun control cuz she has the biggest paragraph next to her name.

Health Care - This is a key issue for me. They turn it into such a complicated thing. For this reason, I am not all that hot about Hillary's position, tho better than conservative solutions (or non-solutions), it seems more like a jumble of stuff rather than a solid plan. Obama has the edge here with his proposed national health insurance program which is simply for those who cannot get it elsewhere. The only thing wanting is a mandate for coverage of all Americans. Most liberal candidates want to cover the cost of such a program by repealing the Bush tax cut for incomes over $250,000. Yay that.

Immigration - Of the guys left in, Gravel and Kucinich are the only two who opposed the Great Wall of Mexico. Am I the only one who thinks this is one of the dumbest plans ever? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution, but then it's not a visible "problem" where I am, so it's not as big a concern. We have help wanted signs at most of the fast-food joints in town, so if Mexicans have taken all the jobs in your area, come on up here, we need a new fry guy at the Mickey D's.

Stem Cell Research - Well, all the liberals support this and all the conservatives, save Giuiani and McCain oppose it. Is this an issue? Should it be an issue? No. Fund the research, it's important.

Iraq - Oh, for fucks sake. Alright, I was against it from the very beginning and Gravel, Kucinich and Obama were with me. But, well, I understand why the rest were not and I am willing to give them a pass based on what they want to do now and how reasonable and effective it will be. Let's take a look and see what they've got, shall we? Oh, that was just depressing. Can't blame them, I have no idea what should be done either. Cut and run is appealing, but probably not wise for the safety and stability of the region..blah blah blah.

Same-sex marriage - As vehemently as social conservatives oppose this, I support it. And yet, nobody is stepping up to be my candidate on this issue. Maybe they are right, it should be left to the states to decide. Still, I am disappointed guys.

Social Security - Well, as an issue, Mitt Romney (gasp) seems to offer the only pro-active suggestion of forming "an independent panel" which is probably just as useful as doing nothing at all. Doesn't concern me overly much, given that my generation long ago got the message that we should plan for retirement without Social Security as a consideration. Which is good, cuz clearly nobody plans to do anything about it.

Taxes - While Gravel's plan to get rid of the IRS is fun to fantasize about, I will go with Obama on this one. More child tax credits and less capital gains tax relief sounds like a good direction.

After a surface examination of the issues stances for the majors, I am leaning towards Obama. I like his positions on the issues that matter to me most: health care, taxes, iraq, plus he's got the stuff, that elusive quality that immediately says "this guy is a leader."

Republican tactics

Democrats.org has a post called "GOP Boasts About "Caging" Efforts" that's worth checking out...

"In a recent e-mail to party supporters, Kansas GOP Chair Kris Kobach bragged about the Republican Party's efforts at "caging" voters. In an e-mail message sent to state Republicans, Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach reviewed the party’s accomplishments this..."



So, this wasn't exactly what I thought I would be writing about when I revived my little political rant blog, but in reading the short blog story linked to above, I am reminded of something that happened 8 years ago when I worked for the Kansas Democratic Party during the 2000 election cycle.

Let me first say that I cannot say with certainty that Democrats don't do this kind of thing, but, I can say that the particular state party that I worked for did not. My impression, as well, is that conventional wisdom generally says the more people who vote, the better Democrats tend to perform in the resulting elections. So, if that theory holds true, and most democratic political operatives believe it does, democrats are better off going door to door to offer rides to polls to get as many people as possible out to vote. Hence the advent of the Get Out The Vote programs you often hear about as election day nears.

But anyway, back to this memory...it was the eve of the election. Several candidates were using a relatively new tool to contact voters...the recorded phone call. You use a phone list, like you would a mailing list and the computer calls the list to play the recorded message reminding people to vote or passing along whatever information the candidate chooses.

The morning the polls opened, we began getting calls from irate voters complaining that our candidates had been calling them at 1...2...3am with a message attacking the conservative opponent. Ironically, staffers working for the candidate the message supposedly came from received calls as well. Hmmm.

Our office was responsible for coordinating the use of this service for our candidates, we made all the arrangements with the company providing this service and after confirming with them, we found that there were no calls scheduled nor performed at those hours and well, we had no knowledge of any planned negative attack message either.

So you tell me? Who ends up benefiting from calls made at 2am claiming to be from the democratic candidate attacking his opponent on the eve of the election?

And now tell me that the story above isn't just more of the same, 8 years later. What is so offensive about this to me is that they were bragging about it in the referenced email.

"Hey, we managed to keep more voters away from the polls in a complete and utter corruption of the political process! Yeehaw!"

Look, everybody is trying to find that edge to increase the numbers in their favor, I know that; our office spent time doing just that, knocking on some doors, but not others, knowing that spending more time with certain people is a better use of resources...but not once, during the entire process did we ever do anything or even entertain the idea of trying to discourage people from voting.