Your dream candidate

[hadassahchana[$]]

I wish I could say, "And how to find her/him". That's a whole nuther thread, though. How do you rank items on your wish list, though? It always seems to me that if candidate A feels strongly in favour of something I like, he always seems to oppose something else I believe in as well. So, how do you decide which vital issues are really vital and which are just wish-fors?

Taking it one step further, which are the most important issues to you? If that isn't being too nosy, can you give a list of big issues and rank them? I think it's interesting to see how decisions like these are made.

[erik_kosberg]

The importance of issues varies over time for me. Right now, getting out of the disaster in Iraq would be at the top of the list for me. Restoring the Constitution would be second on the list. Beyond that, things drop off rapidly. Yeah, the economy, the environment, court appointments, yadda yadda yadda are all important but Iraq and the Constitution would be the key tests of a candidate as far as I'm concerned.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Personal characteristics are important to me this time around: I want someone who is intelligent, honest, hard-working, in touch with reality, not in love with war, and who sees their role as public service -- as working for the people -- as opposed to managing the people, through fear or otherwise, to benefit the few.

As for issues, I put global warming on top, because there is no time to waste, and we need someone who can hit the ground running.

Second would be foreign policy. I don't think there is a solution, per se, to the mess we've gotten into in Iraq, but I'd feel better if there was someone with the intelligence, integrity, etc., to make the best of it from moment to moment.

Third would be health care. It's putting a strain on people who can't, or who can barely, afford insurance, and it's putting a strain on businesses, making it harder for them to operate within the U.S. We need something that is available to everyone and not tied to employers.

Fourth would be repairing the reputation of the U.S. (though I guess this is part of # 2 Foreign Policy)

[realtraveller]

Domestic issues affect me personally more than foreign policy.

1. Keeping terrorists out of the U. S.
2. Keeping taxes low so the economy can continue to grow.
3. Stressing personal responsibility over a governmental caretaker state.
4. Enforcing the immigration laws.
5. Preventing waste and fraud in government.
6. Creating incentives for people to save energy and be green.
7. Preserving open spaces.

[drmomentum[$]]

I don't have a perfect candidate. I would like to see some leadership, though.

Hey, Kinky is pretty good on most issues.

And he's an atheist! (Not that it's really important to me)

-JP

[mtomm[$]]

I tried to visit Kinky's website but unfortunately the word kinky is filtered here at work!

[hadassahchana[$]]

Of course Kinky is the best- but will he run?

And I JP. Thanks for trying to sway the populace. Now, go sign up for the BOC. Ok?

[wivabef]

1. Force an alternative energy source on our country.
2. Repair our status in the International Community so that we can help stop genocide and mass violence in African nations.
3. End the war in Iraq without leaving the people we set up there high and dry.
4. Foster economic growth by reducing silly spending (i.e. Alaska's bridge to nowhere) and encouraging small businesses.
5. Stay out of education and let states and communities manage according to their needs.
6. Attempt to develop some sort of national healthcare initiative.
7. Regulate corporate executive compensation by taxing the shit out of salaries in excess of several million OR
8. Institute the flat tax with generous consideration of what is poverty level.

[realtraveller]

wivabef said

7. Regulate corporate executive compensation by taxing the shit out of salaries in excess of several million OR
8.

Yeah, and sports stars, movie stars, best-selling authors, talk show hosts, rappers, hip-hoppers, rockers, and those guys who came up with YouTube.

[poseidon]

1. Stop fiddling with the 2nd Amendment. The founders were smarter than most of today's politicians.

2. Secure our borders. Cripes, we're doing it in Iraq, but we won't do it here? No lip-service kind of border security, but real border security. No, I don't care how much it costs to start deporting illegals. Deport them anyway.

3. Read the US Constitution. Then, follow what it says. Don't make up rules as you go along, or try to come up with creative interpretations of it. Most of the Constitution is rather clear.

4. Uphold your oath of office.

5. Do not try to seduce the college interns and high school pages. You're the adult, try being one.

6. Find a position and stick by it. Don't shove your finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing. Try being a leader, that's why you were elected.

I'm sure I could find other reasons if I took some time to think about them.

[phoenixx]

A Libertarian who actually had a chance of winning.

[erik_kosberg]

Secure our borders. Cripes, we're doing it in Iraq, but we won't do it here? No lip-service kind of border security, but real border security. No, I don't care how much it costs to start deporting illegals. Deport them anyway.

Actually, we're not doing it in Iraq. The Iran-Iraq border was ordered closed just a few days ago. Wild guess? About as effective as Canute ordering the tide to not rise. Real border security at any cost? A gazillion dollars and a full-blown militarized police state might accomplish that. Is that really a price you'd like to pay? I've seen a wide variety of estimates about the numbers of undocumented people here, but something on the order of nine million seems to be the most common estimate. As if deporting all of those folks or even half that number could happen anywhere other than in fantasyland...

[hadassahchana[$]]

phoenixx said

A Libertarian who actually had a chance of winning.

Leslie, are there any candidates at all, viable or otherwise? I'm not being snarky - I really want to know.


And as for the Constitution being clear, well, not according to most legal experts. Constitutional law scholars on both sides have really interesting debates atbout various interpretations.

[phoenixx]

Last presidential election they put forth a candidate named Harry Brown, for example.

[brian_igo]

poseidon said

1. Stop fiddling with the 2nd Amendment. The founders were smarter than most of today's politicians.

3. Read the US Constitution. Then, follow what it says. Don't make up rules as you go along, or try to come up with creative interpretations of it. Most of the Constitution is rather clear.

So you're coming out against the attacks on "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Whodathunk?

[poseidon]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the Bill of Rights protected the rights of the people, not the rights of the state.

[phoenixx]

Brian!

[brian_igo]

poseidon said

Anyone with half a brain knows that the Bill of Rights protected the rights of the people, not the rights of the state.

The courts have disagreed with you for 150 years now, but never mind. In one sentence you say the Constitution is clear in its intentions, and in the next you unilaterally dismiss the first half of one amendment because you don't like what it says.

Some things never change.

[pippadaisy[$]]

Brian. We miss you, you know. You can't leave me and Emma to be the only hippies!

[poseidon]

brian_igo said

The courts have disagreed with you for 150 years now, but never mind. In one sentence you say the Constitution is clear in its intentions, and in the next you unilaterally dismiss the first half of one amendment because you don't like what it says.

Some things never change.

Well, the courts have changed, and they actually go into detail. And gosh oh golly gee, they seem to agree with what I've been saying all along. Go figure.

US Court of Appeals strikes down DC gun ban, explores what the 2nd Amendment means, and determines that this was a right given to the PEOPLE not the STATE.

http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf

But oh, never mind...

And, before you dismiss this as Drudge's work, it is merely a link to the 75-page decision written by the Court.

And, this, from page 46 of the decision:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrranical government (or a threat from abroad). . . . Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittant enrollment in the militia.

Emphasis mine.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

poseidon said

Well, the courts have changed, and they actually go into detail. And gosh oh golly gee, they seem to agree with what I've been saying all along. Go figure.

First off, the decision you linked to was published TODAY, so your apparent astonishment that Brian hasn't heard of it is misplaced.

Also, this is one court (the D.C. circuit). Other courts are split on this, with many disagreeing with this court's position. The split in the courts is discussed in the decision itself.

This decision has no effect outside of Washington, D.C. Although it will probably be challenged, at which point it will reach courts where it will have a greater effect. What that effect will be depends upon whether the higher courts uphold or overrule this decision.

And, before you dismiss this as Drudge's work, it is merely a link to the 75-page decision written by the Court.

Part of those 75 pages is the dissent.

[realtraveller]

The only place the case can be appealed is the U. S. Supreme Court or a hearing by the D. C. Circuit en banc.