Posts with the tag editorial
Who should a person put their support behind for 2008? We want to get away from politicians who charm us with promises and break them in office. Forget the idea of having a beer with your favorite candidate, because it won't happen while they are surrounded by Secret Service personnel.
So who would be America's best choice? Let's look at history. Many people look at our more personable leaders as their favorites, like JFK or Reagan. When people ask me, I say either Jefferson or FDR. Why? They didn't just energize our country, they changed it.
For historical comparison to our current race, I compared JFK to FDR. But while his career was cut short, we should compare the Kennedy legacy to that of other modern presidents. As I lean Democratic, I am only analyzing their primary. However, I would argue that the comparison could be loosely applied to the Republican party likewise.
Roosevelt was the Governor of New York before becoming our longest serving President. Had he survived, I wonder if he wouldn't have continued as President through to Eisenhower. His political longevity came not from his personality as a pushy leader and a heavy drinker, not from his visual appeal as overweight and handicapped, and not from his wife's either. What made him win in 1932 was his man of action attitude at a time when our country needed it. We didn't need blame. We didn't need someone to tell us what problems we faced. We didn't need holier than thou politicizing. We needed a way to make America work. FDR passed record legislation in his first 100 days, starting the New Deal which led to FICA bank insurance, Social Security, and a way to keep people working so that their skills did not erode. From his elected throne, FDR changed the Democratic Party, the role of the President, the responsibility of government, and the status of America to be a world leader. For a man in a wheelchair, he ran circles around his predecessors.
Kennedy, too, managed to accomplish a lot, but came from a different perspective. The senator triumphed over Nixon because of his personable manner, his good looks, and fashionable wife. The media loved him, and people with their new fangled televisions couldn't help being wooed. He had been groomed for politics since his birth and was catapulted into a presidential track by his dad following his brother's death in WWII. America was superficially complacent after Ike, and JFK had much fewer domestic issues to combat than FDR. Civil rights were a brewing issue, but it was LBJ who signed nondiscrimination into law in 1967. Instead, JFK focused on being a leader who helped America's image, revving up the Space Race, starting the Peace Corps, and trying to stop communism in Vietnam.
Both Presidents were good for our country. However, the Kennedy charm led to a charming America. The determined will of Roosevelt led to an America that would prevail against all odds. Our involvement in WWII was a clearly understood principle, despite our late entry. The Vietnam War was based on principles that were no more clear at the end then when Kennedy was authorized to use military force.
Fast forward to 2007, when the Democratic field has many parallels to both men and both times. Of the 8 candidates, 6 (Dodd, Biden, Clinton, Obama) are current or former (Edwards, Gravel) senators, 1 is a congressman (Kucinich), and 1 is a governor (Richardson). Of the 4 current senators, all are in the Northeast, like Kennedy.
The Kennedy comparison is clear with the 3 frontrunners. They all have succeeded through charisma, visual appeal, and appealing spouses. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are all great speakers when the camera is rolling. Yet one of Obama's most famous lines, "I may not have been in Washington long, but I have been there long enough to know that Washington needs to change," was uttered almost verbatim by Edwards in his presidential primary in 2003. Ironically, Kennedy's most famous quote, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," was originally credited to William Harding, who is also credited with leading us into the Depression. Furthermore, Harding's win in the Roaring 20's is attributed by many historians to his good looks. Edwards has been running for President since 2001, and while his plans are better developed than Obama's, but like Obama, he does not have any experience running a government to show that a fresh outlook will translate into real change. So far, Clinton and Obama have come out to be far from progressive on plans for healthcare and international security.
Yet it is Bill Richardson, the governor, who is the unpolished get-it-done type who has offered America the boldest vision, the detailed plans to implement it, and the resume to prove that he can do it on a national scale. His political pace was not one of capitalization on opportunity, instead it was a slow and steady ascent into the high ranks of the representative and executive branches (as Minority Whip and Secretary of Energy). As a governor, he has implemented dramatic changes in one of the country's poorest states, creating new jobs in high-tech industries, rebuilding the education system, and powering New Mexico with renewable energy. Richardson has an exceptional resume, but he is a man who is discontent to rest on laurels. He has some of the boldest plans of any candidate on a wide range of topics. This includes his energy plan, which implements cleaner, greener energy faster than other candidate plans. Plus, his background as Secretary of Energy under Clinton and Gore with his track record for renewable energy, light rail, and electric vehicles in New Mexico makes his plan more than a position paper. His healthcare plan goes farther than any candidate to give veterans access to the care they deserve. He doesn't just talk about the children as our future or growing America's middle class - he's cut taxes for all income brackets while keeping the New Mexico budget in surplus, raised teacher salaries, reduced border crime and illegal immigration, reduced junk food in schools, made sure all kids have access to health insurance, and removed sales tax on food and medicine.
As far as the times, we are facing a delicate geopolitical environment, humanitarian and ecological crises that threaten life as we know it, an economic conundrum, mounting civil rights issues, and a military-industrial complex. Some candidates are still testing these issues regardless of the large public outcry on them. Candidates such as Obama frequently ask supporters whether there is consensus that these issues are problems. Richardson, however, feels that what should be discussed now is not the existence of these issues, but the best answers to them.
Roosevelt treated Russia as an ally in international times of need despite ideological differences between the USSR and the USA. Richardson is a diplomat with more international experience than any other candidate as a part-time negotiator and former UN Ambassador. He has sat face to face with Castro, al-Bashir, Kim Jong Il, and Saddam Hussein to save lives.
All of the candidates talk about major international issues, but it was Richardson brokered the temporary ceasefire in Darfur in early 2007. Rather than trying to exert a military solution to a human problem in the Sudan as other candidates have supported, he suggests that the problems can be solved nonviolently through economic pressure with China. He speaks with urgency about AIDS, poverty, pandemics, and water.
All candidates talk about extending prosperity to America, but only the governor has direct experience attracting new industries that create sustainable jobs. He raised the minimum wage to rates higher than what was set by the Senate in 2007. He created 85,000 jobs, including high-wage jobs, in what was a poor state, much like Arkansas under Clinton. Under Richardson, New Mexico has been one of the leading states for economic growth and is considered one of the best areas to for employees. He attracts new businesses that focus on technology and sustainable development like Tesla Motors, one of the most promising electric car companies in the world.
Roosevelt is largely credited with changing the voting patterns of Blacks to Democrats. Though Lincoln was a Republican, Roosevelt believed in helping all Americans in need, which included many poor minorities. He was the first to appoint minority and women cabinet members, even in his first administration. While the Democratic field fully embraces civil unions as an extension of equal rights, only Richardson has lobbied for it in his own state as Governor. He signed nondiscrimination based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation into law. In addition, he voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has been unafraid to include the gay community as a support base.
Rather than supporting more militarism, Kennedy talked about peace. Yet, Kennedy also led our country into the Vietnam War. Roosevelt was slow to enter World War II because he felt that domestic issues were Americans' top concerns. By contrast, it was a last-second Russian submarine message that kept the Caribbean from a devastating decision by Kennedy. Echoing Kennedy's commitment to peace, all Democratic presidential candidates talk about there being no military solution in Iraq. Yet all of the current senators and the leading former senator support keeping some troops in Iraq after an official withdrawal. Only the governor, Bill Richardson, and the congressman, Dennis Kucinich, have expressed that no troops should be left behind.
The President has a unique opportunity to solve. Roosevelt saw problems and used executive power to fix America. Despite campaigning on his early opposition to the idea of invading Iraq, Obama sent his supporters an email 4 years after the invasion asking them to tell him why Iraq is a problem and what their story, not their solution, was. Richardson is a problem solver. His common sense yields innovative solutions that have yet to be resembled in the candidates who promise a fresh outlook, as the adage suggests that common sense is anything but common.
When people ask me who is the best candidate for 2008, I say Richardson. I support Richardson because I like a person of action, not a person of words. Without a television, I read transcripts and am hardly wooed by large rallies and good articulation. Leadership is more than a stance, it is the combination of stance and steps in the proper direction. I wish all Americans set aside their favorites for what would be best for America. Vote not for a candidate, vote for what a candidate can do for your country.
So who would be America's best choice? Let's look at history. Many people look at our more personable leaders as their favorites, like JFK or Reagan. When people ask me, I say either Jefferson or FDR. Why? They didn't just energize our country, they changed it.
For historical comparison to our current race, I compared JFK to FDR. But while his career was cut short, we should compare the Kennedy legacy to that of other modern presidents. As I lean Democratic, I am only analyzing their primary. However, I would argue that the comparison could be loosely applied to the Republican party likewise.
Roosevelt was the Governor of New York before becoming our longest serving President. Had he survived, I wonder if he wouldn't have continued as President through to Eisenhower. His political longevity came not from his personality as a pushy leader and a heavy drinker, not from his visual appeal as overweight and handicapped, and not from his wife's either. What made him win in 1932 was his man of action attitude at a time when our country needed it. We didn't need blame. We didn't need someone to tell us what problems we faced. We didn't need holier than thou politicizing. We needed a way to make America work. FDR passed record legislation in his first 100 days, starting the New Deal which led to FICA bank insurance, Social Security, and a way to keep people working so that their skills did not erode. From his elected throne, FDR changed the Democratic Party, the role of the President, the responsibility of government, and the status of America to be a world leader. For a man in a wheelchair, he ran circles around his predecessors.
Kennedy, too, managed to accomplish a lot, but came from a different perspective. The senator triumphed over Nixon because of his personable manner, his good looks, and fashionable wife. The media loved him, and people with their new fangled televisions couldn't help being wooed. He had been groomed for politics since his birth and was catapulted into a presidential track by his dad following his brother's death in WWII. America was superficially complacent after Ike, and JFK had much fewer domestic issues to combat than FDR. Civil rights were a brewing issue, but it was LBJ who signed nondiscrimination into law in 1967. Instead, JFK focused on being a leader who helped America's image, revving up the Space Race, starting the Peace Corps, and trying to stop communism in Vietnam.
Both Presidents were good for our country. However, the Kennedy charm led to a charming America. The determined will of Roosevelt led to an America that would prevail against all odds. Our involvement in WWII was a clearly understood principle, despite our late entry. The Vietnam War was based on principles that were no more clear at the end then when Kennedy was authorized to use military force.
Fast forward to 2007, when the Democratic field has many parallels to both men and both times. Of the 8 candidates, 6 (Dodd, Biden, Clinton, Obama) are current or former (Edwards, Gravel) senators, 1 is a congressman (Kucinich), and 1 is a governor (Richardson). Of the 4 current senators, all are in the Northeast, like Kennedy.
The Kennedy comparison is clear with the 3 frontrunners. They all have succeeded through charisma, visual appeal, and appealing spouses. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are all great speakers when the camera is rolling. Yet one of Obama's most famous lines, "I may not have been in Washington long, but I have been there long enough to know that Washington needs to change," was uttered almost verbatim by Edwards in his presidential primary in 2003. Ironically, Kennedy's most famous quote, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," was originally credited to William Harding, who is also credited with leading us into the Depression. Furthermore, Harding's win in the Roaring 20's is attributed by many historians to his good looks. Edwards has been running for President since 2001, and while his plans are better developed than Obama's, but like Obama, he does not have any experience running a government to show that a fresh outlook will translate into real change. So far, Clinton and Obama have come out to be far from progressive on plans for healthcare and international security.
Yet it is Bill Richardson, the governor, who is the unpolished get-it-done type who has offered America the boldest vision, the detailed plans to implement it, and the resume to prove that he can do it on a national scale. His political pace was not one of capitalization on opportunity, instead it was a slow and steady ascent into the high ranks of the representative and executive branches (as Minority Whip and Secretary of Energy). As a governor, he has implemented dramatic changes in one of the country's poorest states, creating new jobs in high-tech industries, rebuilding the education system, and powering New Mexico with renewable energy. Richardson has an exceptional resume, but he is a man who is discontent to rest on laurels. He has some of the boldest plans of any candidate on a wide range of topics. This includes his energy plan, which implements cleaner, greener energy faster than other candidate plans. Plus, his background as Secretary of Energy under Clinton and Gore with his track record for renewable energy, light rail, and electric vehicles in New Mexico makes his plan more than a position paper. His healthcare plan goes farther than any candidate to give veterans access to the care they deserve. He doesn't just talk about the children as our future or growing America's middle class - he's cut taxes for all income brackets while keeping the New Mexico budget in surplus, raised teacher salaries, reduced border crime and illegal immigration, reduced junk food in schools, made sure all kids have access to health insurance, and removed sales tax on food and medicine.
As far as the times, we are facing a delicate geopolitical environment, humanitarian and ecological crises that threaten life as we know it, an economic conundrum, mounting civil rights issues, and a military-industrial complex. Some candidates are still testing these issues regardless of the large public outcry on them. Candidates such as Obama frequently ask supporters whether there is consensus that these issues are problems. Richardson, however, feels that what should be discussed now is not the existence of these issues, but the best answers to them.
Roosevelt treated Russia as an ally in international times of need despite ideological differences between the USSR and the USA. Richardson is a diplomat with more international experience than any other candidate as a part-time negotiator and former UN Ambassador. He has sat face to face with Castro, al-Bashir, Kim Jong Il, and Saddam Hussein to save lives.
All of the candidates talk about major international issues, but it was Richardson brokered the temporary ceasefire in Darfur in early 2007. Rather than trying to exert a military solution to a human problem in the Sudan as other candidates have supported, he suggests that the problems can be solved nonviolently through economic pressure with China. He speaks with urgency about AIDS, poverty, pandemics, and water.
All candidates talk about extending prosperity to America, but only the governor has direct experience attracting new industries that create sustainable jobs. He raised the minimum wage to rates higher than what was set by the Senate in 2007. He created 85,000 jobs, including high-wage jobs, in what was a poor state, much like Arkansas under Clinton. Under Richardson, New Mexico has been one of the leading states for economic growth and is considered one of the best areas to for employees. He attracts new businesses that focus on technology and sustainable development like Tesla Motors, one of the most promising electric car companies in the world.
Roosevelt is largely credited with changing the voting patterns of Blacks to Democrats. Though Lincoln was a Republican, Roosevelt believed in helping all Americans in need, which included many poor minorities. He was the first to appoint minority and women cabinet members, even in his first administration. While the Democratic field fully embraces civil unions as an extension of equal rights, only Richardson has lobbied for it in his own state as Governor. He signed nondiscrimination based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation into law. In addition, he voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has been unafraid to include the gay community as a support base.
Rather than supporting more militarism, Kennedy talked about peace. Yet, Kennedy also led our country into the Vietnam War. Roosevelt was slow to enter World War II because he felt that domestic issues were Americans' top concerns. By contrast, it was a last-second Russian submarine message that kept the Caribbean from a devastating decision by Kennedy. Echoing Kennedy's commitment to peace, all Democratic presidential candidates talk about there being no military solution in Iraq. Yet all of the current senators and the leading former senator support keeping some troops in Iraq after an official withdrawal. Only the governor, Bill Richardson, and the congressman, Dennis Kucinich, have expressed that no troops should be left behind.
The President has a unique opportunity to solve. Roosevelt saw problems and used executive power to fix America. Despite campaigning on his early opposition to the idea of invading Iraq, Obama sent his supporters an email 4 years after the invasion asking them to tell him why Iraq is a problem and what their story, not their solution, was. Richardson is a problem solver. His common sense yields innovative solutions that have yet to be resembled in the candidates who promise a fresh outlook, as the adage suggests that common sense is anything but common.
When people ask me who is the best candidate for 2008, I say Richardson. I support Richardson because I like a person of action, not a person of words. Without a television, I read transcripts and am hardly wooed by large rallies and good articulation. Leadership is more than a stance, it is the combination of stance and steps in the proper direction. I wish all Americans set aside their favorites for what would be best for America. Vote not for a candidate, vote for what a candidate can do for your country.
Posts By Month
Posts
