Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
mslkauai
Published Letters: 13 Editor's Choice: 1
The debate system is so skewed to the front runners that, for the “sheep like followers” that represent a majority of voters, the media decides on who is worth even considering. The one Republican candidate that is truly different from the rest is Ron Paul and he gets minimal opportunity to participate. He is the only real conservative up there with a undeniable record of fiscal responsibility and honesty regardless of the political fallout. It is absolutely amazing how pro Iraq the Republican candidates are (except Paul) knowing that issue alone is going to sink them in the general election. The country is not going to overlook a candidate that is committed to 8 more years of Iraq. The Republican party needs to truly redefine what conservatism is (smaller federal gov, much less federal spending and greater protection of rights with less intervention abroad) as this has been completely overlooked in favor of their stand on abortion.
Ron Paul is an early, before his time, signal of how the country is reacting to the two party system. His ideas are going to gain more and more attention and support, although he is not the candidate that can truly gain enough support to get to the white house. He does, however, have the integrity and honesty we are looking for. What we need is a candidate that shares many of Paul's beliefs and understands how to communicate how we can get from where we are now to where we need to be in a realistic, practical manner. There have to be intermediate steps that a wider segment of the population can get behind in order to gain real acceptance. What we need now is a redefining of what "conservative" really means. Unfortunately, it has been defined so much around religion and abortion that it has this negative aura that just turns people off. If conservatives could somehow stop focusing so hard on abortion and start focusing on shrinking the size, power and role of the Federal government, dramatically cutting taxes and stop our foreign policy of intervention and regime change/tampering, then we could really get a powerful and popular message of what it really means to be a conservative. With the exception of Ron Paul, there are no other conservatives on the Republican list of candidates. Politicians use taxes to buy votes and that simply isn't what conservatives should be about.
Hillary's lead on all levels is going to continue to shrink as more and more democrats wake up to the fact that they have other competitive choices. If she loses in Iowa, look out! Her support across the nation will change. Hillary is, ultimately, a step into the past and that isn't what America wants right now. She is a divisive, big government democrat that wants to expand the doctrine of taking taxpayer money to buy votes and enlarge the payroll of government.
The forum of having 6-8 people on stage giving short responses to complex questions is just not very effective. I'd like to see 3-4 different credible people interview each candidate on a variety of important issues with the ability to ask follow up questions and push the button when they evade the question ... then take all that taped information and edit it into a truly effective way to see how the candidates respond to different issues. Then, allow the candidates to truly debate one another in 10-minute segments ... for instance, Rudy against Mitt on immigration for 10 minutes or Ron Paul against Rudy on the economy for 15 minutes. This would give us a much, much better view into how the candidates think and a deeper perspective into their vision. I've watched at least 5 debates and have no idea what the vision of any of the candidates is. I know what they're against, but have no idea what they're for. They do each seem to try and promote short phrase image-isms of themselves like "fighter against poverty" or "bring the country together" or "the anti-terrorism" candidate, but that just isn't enough. What about their positions on size of government, government spending, focus on domestic vs. foreign issues, role of American military, energy independence, pollution, corporate influence on politics, etc? We need a much better system to get their ideas onto the television without it being a shallow, sound bite driven exercise.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
