What I need to see from the candidates

[lynnzop[$]]

I think I'm going to change my sub-name to "Fence Sitter".

I read through the different platforms and "I believe in ____" statements from the candidates. Some I agree with, some I don't, some I don't give a rat's behind about.

What I want to know is "which ones are important to YOU", Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, Ms. Palin, Mr. Biden? Which are YOUR burning issues, what will be your top priorities if you are elected?

Because we know they can't work on everything in four years. They can't be involved in every platform or impact every ideal that they believe in.

The topics that I care about, the ones that I'm passionate about, are the ones that I want to align my alliances with. I may not like Candidate A's stance on the Second Amendment, but if s/he isn't going to take action on it, and I do like that candidate's stance on the economy and s/he will work hard on implementing their policies, I might swing my vote that direction.

I hope this makes sense. What I'm trying to say is that it's a matter of priority...I can't like everything about any of the candidates, just like I don't necessarily like everything about my friends, spouse or even my kids. But perhaps I can find out if we line up on the things that are important and that will get worked on.

That might be enough to make me fall off that fence one way or another.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

I tend to look at it the other way - I won't agree on everything a candidate says he wants to do, but I focus on the top few issues that mean the most to me.

I try to remember, too, that the President can want and plan to do a zillion things, but if he doesn't have the support of Congress and the Senate, he can't do much of nuthin'.

[lynnzop[$]]

That's true, MJ. And whether or not I care passionately about Issue X or not, if I disagree completely with a candidate's view and they assign a SCJ that follows a line of thinking that I don't agree with, that is a lot of power for a long time that might be regretted.

Perhaps I think this through too much, or put too much emphasis on my puny little vote. But that's the way we are SUPPOSED to consider the candidates, right?

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Exactly!

[hadassahchana[$]]

So, is it ok to ask you what is on your wish list? I think that would be an interesting conversation - what we want, and which candidate is most likely to either give that or fight against it.

[lynnzop[$]]

Sure, I'm pretty open about it, as long as everyone remembers that this is in Current Events, not in The Symposium. Understand that this is MY list, and no one is allowed to diss me here for not placing "your" personal agenda on my high list.

Education and the Economy are very high on my list. Environmental issues tie in closely with the Economy, so rank a close 3rd.

Social issues such as crime, gun control, abortion, gay marriage - all important, but honestly, while they have high emotional charge, but I place them much lower in my grand scheme of things.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

That's not so much a wish list as a category list - like saying "appliances" instead of "Whirlpool 17cubic foot refrigerator." What do you mean when you say "Education" - what do you want the person's plans to include or involve? How do you want them to handle "Education"? By "Economy" do you want taxes lowered for people or do you want tax incentives given to corporations to stay in the US - or something altogether different?

Preventing child abuse and improving child welfare is high on my list, and both candidates mention them in their platforms and sometimes in their speeches. But they each have different ways of dealing with the issues, and I might agree with one but not the other.

[lynnzop[$]]

Yes, they are categories, not specifics, I do understand that. I can read both candidates rhetoric on what they will do about those two issues, and determine if their plans fall into line with what I'd like to see or not.

Where I'm trying to go is to understand where those "categories" or plans fall into the candidate's priorities.

For example, let's say Obama has a great plan for Education that I totally agree with, and his plans include implementing that plan by 20XX. If I didn't like his energy policy but it's unlikely that he'll do anything about alternative energy in his term as Prez, I could swing his direction.

Or if I like McCain's plans for the economy but shudder at Palin's right-wing policies - if it's not high on their list to overturn Roe v. Wade, or legislate against same-sex marriage, but they're going to fix the economy, I might be okay with them.

Does that make more sense?

[drmomentum[$]]

On education I want a president who, instead of scapegoating and denigrating teachers for political points can support and improve teachers.

I listened carefully to McCain declaring open season on teachers (think Sarah Palin in a helicoper with a rifle over a school). He wants bad teachers to find new jobs. It sounds good in to the angry Republican base in the room, but it's not practical. Someone has to teach, and the plan cannot be to stress further an already stressed system. We need support for current teachers, not threats. We need to attract good people to teaching, not just expect that people are going to put up with the crap for mediocre pay.

We need more research into learning methods so that we can teach teachers to teach better; so they can jump the most common hurdles and give kids access to big ideas that will carry them through in their future education, not just teach them 18th century shopkeeper math.

Is tougher standards for teachers going to improve learning in schools where the #1 social problem is prostitution? I know middle schools whose administrators describe this as their situation. This is a function of parents, and the economy.

We need to shrink the wage gap to take some of the burden off parents and encourage parents to get involved in their communities and schools.

Obama doesn't promise or spell out all of this, but his policies are more in line with my wishes for handling these problems. The wage gap, in particular, but I also found McCain's speech ominous and shocking in its lack of understanding of the problems facing schools today.

So, yes, economy and education are two big concerns of mine as well. And I think McCain has some outdated and broken ideas about at least one of those areas, and we're more likely to get actual change from Obama.

-JP

[hadassahchana[$]]

Lynn, that totally made sense to me. That's exactly what I'm trying to do - rank what they say vs. what is likely to happen. Roe v. Wade? Not going to be overturned no matter who's in office. For me, the economy is the big deal at the moment. Education is too, but like MJ said, I'm trying to see what that means to both candidates. The sooner we get rid of NCLB the better, but I want to know what will replace it.

I guess my #1 issue is poverty- real poverty, the kind where parents don't eat enough to make sure that kids get at least something every day. That shouldn't be able to happen in a country where most people throw away enough food for another entire family each month. The poverty thing links both economy and education, and so everything else pretty much will take a back seat for me. (But banning books- omfg!).

[wivabef]

I agree with Cindy.

The government makes it very difficult for the working poor to get assistance. It is primarily taken care of by civic organizations. In our community, the greatest providers of care for the homeless are religious organizations who do not proselytize... they simple help others in need.

In fact, I can't even think of a homeless facility run by the government in our county. We have a large transitional housing project known as Sarah's House, which is run by Catholic Charities, a winter relief program that runs for about 14 weeks call Arundel House of Hope, which is a project of about 35 local churches and civic organizations. We have Emmaus Center, again, a Benedictine project. Salvation Army... etc.

At our food pantry, we're Episcopalian, no one is turned away. We just keep digging deeper and getting the community involved to continue to provide.

But no help from the government. Nor do we want it. Then we would have to ask for ID and make them fill out forms.

Happy Helpers for the Homeless... it was started by a kid.

I am amazed at the willingness of elected officials to spend money on silly things like national hot dog day and what not but someone looking for a meal has to fill out all kinds of forms to prove they are in need of government assistance.

I would gladly pay 50 cents for a first class stamp if it could help people feed themselves and find shelter.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

wivabef said

It is primarily taken care of by civic organizations. In our community, the greatest providers of care for the homeless are religious organizations who do not proselytize... they simple help others in need.

In fact, I can't even think of a homeless facility run by the government in our county. We have a large transitional housing project known as Sarah's House, which is run by Catholic Charities, a winter relief program that runs for about 14 weeks call Arundel House of Hope, which is a project of about 35 local churches and civic organizations. We have Emmaus Center, again, a Benedictine project. Salvation Army... etc.

Dig deeper into some of those budgets, and into the proselytizing issue.

Many times people think an organization is doing things independently, for whatever reasons, and yet they are actually providing services under contract to the local government and/or get state and federal assistance (subsidies, free cheese for the shelter to use, whatever). Examples:

Foster care in many states is provided by nonprofit organizations that are religious or non-religious in nature - some that have been around for over 100 years. The agencies are paid by the local counties and/or state to provide these services. The states get Title IV-E money from the Feds to cover a portion of the expense of foster care, and the states pass it on to the counties and nonprofit agencies.

Homeless services are similarly contracted out in many states and municipalities. Erie County in Western NY contracted with three nonprofit religious agencies to provide homeless services, for example. One religious agency declined to participate in the county contract process because the hallmark of their program was daily prayer to Jesus, several times a day, and the county would not give them money if they mandated the residents had to attend these chapel services.

We are talking serious money here - in NYC, one particular religious agency receives $90M to provide homeless and foster care services every year. This agency also is very active in collecting donations, and the money goes towards their religious programs - although the average donor probably assumes it goes to pay for services at the homeless shelter down the block. But it doesn't.

There's the government-surplus food that is given to programs that request it, and the program may not be required to collect information on the eligibility of the people they are serving - often head counts are enough. And agencies also get public money through earmarks and "member items" from the feds, state government, and municipal governments without any client tracking or other strings required. These little grants and in-kind subsidizing can be a significant part of a grassroots organization's budget but may not be apparent even to the volunteers who work there.

There are small programs and shelters and food pantries where there's no government money and there's no proselytizing, but I don't believe they do account for the majority of services provided in any of the individual states. It is very rare for a program to receive nothing - absolutely nothing - from any level of government.