Iowa Caucus...

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by OULobo
Warning wry comment ahead:

Right, cause Cleveland electric companies are well known all across the eastern seaboard now for their efficiency and quality of service.

Nice allusion to the blackout, but the public still owns the companies and that is how it should be.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Blecchhh!! Gephart. Does anyone see the resemblence?

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Studio/2683/images/hopper.gif

http://www.sbdems.org/images/Gephardt.jpeg

It's the eyes!

The first photo didn't come out for me...who was it of?

 

[MisterMike]

It was hopper, from a bug's life. I think if you copy the properties and paste it in the address bar it will come up. It's on a geocities server so maybe it's being blocked. It came up for me cuz I had it cached. Sry.

 

[OULobo]

Well my re-research has shown me that there are no candidates that match what I want perfectly, but I couldn't expect that there would be. Quick run down. Please keep in mind these are personal opinions with emphasis on the issues most important to me.

Clark - I like his charisma. I like most of his stances on the issues (he's a little soft on the Pat. Act and a little hard on gun control), but he doesn't take many hard stances. You can't beat his military record, but he may not have the political connections to get much done in office. I do, however, have to love a General that focuses on domestic issues. late start doesn't seem to be hurting him. Not afraid to introduce new ideas, but official stances are nothing new.

Kucinich - I love his new ideas and his decisiveness on the issues. It's refreshing to see someone with direction and purpose. He doesn't really have a presidential image, lacks money for the campaign, and needs more national exposure. Seems to be too liberal for most Dems. He is quickly becoming the guilty pleasure that later becomes the "wasted vote". A little soft on foreign policy.

Dean - Too hot-headed and non-committal? Has the connections, time in office, party support and endorsements to make him look like a winner on paper, but actual opinions seem to be different. He seems to dodge issues and instead attack opponents. Seems very moderate party line Dem and chooses to spout jargon rather than debate issues. Opposed war in Iraq and all "first strike" initiatives, but says he wants more troops in Iraq and Afghan. I do like his gun policies.

Kerry - New front runner with big money. Supposedly a bonafide Vietnam war hero (if you count the Navy). I worry that rich people favor other rich people, but everyone in politics is rich and his stances on negating corporate loopholes and enacting extra taxes on the rich are encouraging. Easy person to see as a US Pres. He has enough party clout to shake things up. I personally love his stance on the Pat. Act, but have trouble with gun control opinions.

Edwards - Fully supports the Pat. Act and supports Iraq war. Two strikes. Other stances are acceptable, but these kill it for me.

GWB - Wants to increase the budget deficit, increase the powers of the Pat. Act, legalize illegal immigrants, picked a fight in a Iraq without real provocation (still no WMDs), supports NAFTA and WTO, exempts the rich and corporations from taxes and wants to drill the Alaskan refuge. The only thing I like is that he seeks to protect firearms makers from lawsuits, but what do you expect from a Texan. Just about anyone is better than this guy.

If you want a well-made (I know its CNN, but it's not bad) quick guide to the issues, check out http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/

 

[Cruentus]

I will say that CNN is a good start, but is too general and not completely accurate. I would read the websites of your favorite canadates to get a better idea on what their plans are. Yet, it is an alright start.