![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
symbioidljSo far, I've been debating back and forth, and I've finally come to a decision(one election day, no less)
I've decided on Edwards, and I will state my reasons why, and I hope that those of you in Wisconsin today(and those of you who have yet to vote), will listen and can agree.
There are arguments for both Dean and Kucinich that I can appreciate. And idealistically, I would go for Kucinich.
But I've decided on Edwards, for a multiplicity of reasons.
1) I don't like Kerry. Never have, and never will. He's too "establishment", and the same could be said for Edwards, especially, considering he's(Edwards) a member of the Democratic Leadership Council(the moderate-conservative wing of the democratic party), and for that reason I was skeptical. Kerry is as well.
2) Positivity. Yes, he's positive and gives an image of hope, and hasn't resorted to negativity. A lot of my co-workers who are to the right of me, like that about him.
3) Working-class background. Kucinich has it as well. But I have to admit that, although Kucinich is my ideal candidate, that I don't want Kerry. I believe Edwards(and perhaps Dean), have the strongest chance to challenge Kerry. You must admit that Kucinich just isn't going to have that chance. I'm not being defeatist, just realistic. But here's what I find encouraging about my support of Edwards. In the Iowa Caucuses, it's known that Edwards and Kucinich came to an agreement to move their supporters for the other if that would allow one of them to win. This is, in a sense, and endorsement of Edwards, IMHO.
3) Edwards, even though a member of the DLC, speaks out against NAFTA, and claims to have always opposed it. Not just NAFTA but all of these multilateral trade agreements, he seems to understand the issues there. Kerry supports NAFTA and WTO.
4) When I looked at Edwards site for the issues, I went to the Native American section, and he is firm on Indian rights, and treaty rights. He will make sure we enforce the treaties, and we properly get the money to the American Indians that they have in the Interior Dept. which has been utterly mismanaged to this day.
5) His approach to dealing with issues are the moderate approach, encouraging companies to invest in alternative energy, inner-cities, etc... by offering tax-cuts. I think that's the best way to do it(in our current system), a combo reward-punish system.
6) He's firmly pro-choice and women's rights, and other civil rights.
Overall, I find Edwards to be the best compromise between ideology and pragmatism. The positivity is important. He seems nice, but I think he's also tough enough to take the shit from Rove.
The one thing I didn't see on his site is Queer rights(I say queer, because, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
metaphorge pointed out, gay is only part of the full spectrum of queer/pansexual. My assumption is he's taking the middle of the road "support civil unions" approach, which sucks, but it's still better than Bush. Also, I didn't see anything about Civil Liberties(ie: privacy, concern about the police state/patriot act, etc... the drug war............) This is one of my biggest concerns. He still can't be as bad as Bush...
And I think he's probably better than Kerry on a lot of these issues.
That's why I'm going for Edwards. You can berate me if you want... If you live in Wisconsin and still aren't decided or are hinging between a few candidates, please take these few simple arguments into consideration. Go to his website to find out more about his thoughts on the issues: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/issues.asp
Thanks.
I've decided on Edwards, and I will state my reasons why, and I hope that those of you in Wisconsin today(and those of you who have yet to vote), will listen and can agree.
There are arguments for both Dean and Kucinich that I can appreciate. And idealistically, I would go for Kucinich.
But I've decided on Edwards, for a multiplicity of reasons.
1) I don't like Kerry. Never have, and never will. He's too "establishment", and the same could be said for Edwards, especially, considering he's(Edwards) a member of the Democratic Leadership Council(the moderate-conservative wing of the democratic party), and for that reason I was skeptical. Kerry is as well.
2) Positivity. Yes, he's positive and gives an image of hope, and hasn't resorted to negativity. A lot of my co-workers who are to the right of me, like that about him.
3) Working-class background. Kucinich has it as well. But I have to admit that, although Kucinich is my ideal candidate, that I don't want Kerry. I believe Edwards(and perhaps Dean), have the strongest chance to challenge Kerry. You must admit that Kucinich just isn't going to have that chance. I'm not being defeatist, just realistic. But here's what I find encouraging about my support of Edwards. In the Iowa Caucuses, it's known that Edwards and Kucinich came to an agreement to move their supporters for the other if that would allow one of them to win. This is, in a sense, and endorsement of Edwards, IMHO.
3) Edwards, even though a member of the DLC, speaks out against NAFTA, and claims to have always opposed it. Not just NAFTA but all of these multilateral trade agreements, he seems to understand the issues there. Kerry supports NAFTA and WTO.
4) When I looked at Edwards site for the issues, I went to the Native American section, and he is firm on Indian rights, and treaty rights. He will make sure we enforce the treaties, and we properly get the money to the American Indians that they have in the Interior Dept. which has been utterly mismanaged to this day.
5) His approach to dealing with issues are the moderate approach, encouraging companies to invest in alternative energy, inner-cities, etc... by offering tax-cuts. I think that's the best way to do it(in our current system), a combo reward-punish system.
6) He's firmly pro-choice and women's rights, and other civil rights.
Overall, I find Edwards to be the best compromise between ideology and pragmatism. The positivity is important. He seems nice, but I think he's also tough enough to take the shit from Rove.
The one thing I didn't see on his site is Queer rights(I say queer, because, as
metaphorge pointed out, gay is only part of the full spectrum of queer/pansexual. My assumption is he's taking the middle of the road "support civil unions" approach, which sucks, but it's still better than Bush. Also, I didn't see anything about Civil Liberties(ie: privacy, concern about the police state/patriot act, etc... the drug war............) This is one of my biggest concerns. He still can't be as bad as Bush...And I think he's probably better than Kerry on a lot of these issues.
That's why I'm going for Edwards. You can berate me if you want... If you live in Wisconsin and still aren't decided or are hinging between a few candidates, please take these few simple arguments into consideration. Go to his website to find out more about his thoughts on the issues: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/issues.asp
Thanks.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 12:08 pm (UTC)-m.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 12:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 06:03 pm (UTC)I'm confused.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 06:24 pm (UTC)Basically, each party has multiple candidates vying for the contendership. Unless, of course, there's an incumbant(as in the case of George W...), then usually, the incumbant is the only person on the ticket. But, in our case, for the Democratic Party, we've had a long process of debates and some votes. The contenders were: John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt, Wesley Clark, Carol Moseley-Braun... Moseley-Braun, Clark, and Gephardt dropped from the race fairly early on.
Basically, the person who wins the primary is the one who faces off against Bush in November.
The biggest bullshit about this process is how it's done. It's done over a period of time... The media initially annointed Howard Dean as the front runner, and most likely to win, but he came in third(I believe) in Iowa(the first state to vote), then other states voted over the past few weeks, and John Kerry gained momentum and is the front runner. I, of course, don't like it... Howard Dean has said that Wisconsin is his last stand, but he's back-pedaled on that.
The problem is that since every state has a different time frame, once someone gets the momentum, people are stupid, and go with the herd/flow... "Kerry's winning, he must be popular, I guess I'll vote for him. If I vote for someone else, I won't vote for the winner." But the whole fucking point of primaries is to vote for who you WANT to win. Some people go along more ideological lines(ie: Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton, who are pretty left of center, and fairly principled in that regards, but really have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination), others a pragmatic "who can beat George W" or "who has more experience" type approach, and those people probably pick Kerry. I try to blend a balance of both, so I find someone I can agree with for the most part, but still has a chance of getting the nomination and an ability to defeat W...
I hope this helped. I hope it wasn't too long and convoluted.(you know how I can get, right?)