Constructive gadfly
Published on August 4, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics
 All issues considered what one stands out most in casting your vote?

1) Likable character in the candidate

2) Clear-cut winner of the debates

3) Stance taken on a constitutional amendment defining marriage

4) Pro-life or woman’s choice

5) Continuance of the ban on assault weapons or its termination

6) Vouchers as opposed to more funds for public education

7) The candidate who would be the better commander in chief

8) The better foreign policy offered 

9) Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the present economy

 110) Targeted homeland security funds in most vulnerable areas

 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: August, 4, 2004.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Aug 04, 2004

So hard to pick only one but since you only wanted one.... hmm....

7) The candidate who would be the better commander in chief

Hands down... I'm a fascist at heart I guess.... or whatever...

on Aug 04, 2004
This one ought to be featured.
on Aug 04, 2004

That's the big question--how do you get featured?


There have been as you know non-dictatorial commanders in chief. 

on Aug 04, 2004

wow...I'm going to have to go with total self-interest and say #7. 


 

on Aug 04, 2004
Gotta go with # 7 myself
The name says it all.
on Aug 05, 2004
Tough call for me, but I'd also have to go with 7. Maybe 2 right behind that...
on Aug 05, 2004
I'd have to say 8 - the right mix of colonies and allies can make sure you get everything you want.
on Aug 05, 2004
#7
on Aug 05, 2004
As you worded these, #8 comes out on top. In the long run, we will wish that we had excellent foreign policy more than we will wish for anything else here, even #7. The terrorists have more to fear from us, if we excel in diplomancy than if we excel in any striclty military arena.

However, you leave out a lot.

You ruin the economic policy choice by turning it into such a short term concern:
9) Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the present economy
Keep in mind that that the goal of terrorists is to bring down the American economy, and our long term strength depends on economic decisions. That is different from judging presidents on rises and dips, the timing of which reflect more than a small element of luck.

You also leave out environmental policy. In the long run, we are going to wish that our presidents had taken a wise course between those that see the environment only in terms of sentimentality, and those that see only short term economic gain. What I wouldn't give for a president wise enough to see the environmental stakes in terms of the future of humanity and of the country.

on Aug 05, 2004
7.

on Aug 05, 2004

i have to go with  #7 too.

assuming this is representative of the electorate, i guess we're looking at a kerry landslide. 

on Aug 05, 2004
The terrorists have more to fear from us, if we excel in diplomancy than if we excel in any striclty military arena.


What is it about our diplomacy that terrorists should fear? I think it is important for us to encourage other countries to detain terrorists and freeze assets within their borders. I don't think this is a campaign issue though as both candidates favor this and Bush has a strong record of encouraging this.
on Aug 05, 2004
Kerry landslide? Bush is polling better than Kerry in the war on terror according to these polls.
on Aug 05, 2004
What is it about our diplomacy that terrorists should fear? I think it is important for us to encourage other countries to detain terrorists and freeze assets within their borders.
You have partly but not completely answered your own question.

We are the mightiest country in the world, but we have nowhere near the necessary power to prevent terrorism without the cooperation of the international community. Further, for those who have, stability is clearly a plus. Stability is primarily a fucntion of diplomacy.

I don't think this is a campaign issue though as both candidates favor this and Bush has a strong record of encouraging this.
I think I would choose Kerry over Bush in this area.

Even within your narrowed definition of the goal, I look at Afghanistan and see that the current administration has not done so well at causing terrorists to be detained.

However, for me the larger issue is more important. Both men will use both military and diplomatic means to try to forward the interests of the country, but I predict that Bush will sacrifice significant diplomacy to make military gains, and Kerry would do the reverse. For all the smoke put up by both sides, I see that as the central difference between the two. In the case of Bush, the record is pretty clear.

There is an argument to be made on both sides, but I believe that the military skew appeals more to the heart. (The SOBs embody evil, and I am going to stand up to it by kicking the snot out of any piece of evil I can lay my hands on. A dead man can't commit terrorist acts, and we'll be respected for our actions.)

I believe the diplomatic skew appeals more to rational thought. (The terrorists' actions were designed to draw America into an overreaction, which could then be used to strengthen the militant Muslim agenda in that part of the world. America can kill hundreds of terrorists, but if we are not careful, the hundreds of innocent victims can be turned into a powerful propaganda campaign against us, which then destabalizes the most pro-west governments in the Middle East, and creates thousands more willing terrorists.)

I prefer the second argument to the first, and I believe that Kerry puts more stock in it, so this pushes me towards Kerry.
on Aug 05, 2004
None of the above. My big one would be economic policy, which include thinking about free trade, taxes, deficits, and major programs proposed by the candidates.
3 Pages1 2 3