...while wondering what ever happened to Paul Simon (D), IL

Election season is fully underway and we've decided to weigh in with our selections, before Super-Duper Tuesday renders them moot. The Dallas Morning News recently did something we liked and we're going to shamelessly copy it. They issued two endorsements, one Democrat and one Republican. Since we're regularly castigated by readers of the right for being too left and the left for being too right, we figure we have enough in us to piss everyone off equally.

To be completely up-front, this entire offering is going to be comprised of our political opinions. If these don't interest you, we understand; you can click the little 'x' at the upper right-hand corner now, because it is not going to get any better. We'll see you next time.


Still here? Cool.

First, the ground rules:


1 We are going to list the candidates by party, in inverse order of their palatability.
2 We are going to try to articulate specific reasons we like or dislike a candidate.
3 If you don't have a chance at winning, you're not getting analyzed (read Ron Paul).


History:


For the record, our presidential votes in each of the elections for which we were eligible have been:


1988 Jesse Jackson in the democratic primary, Michael Dukakis in the general election.
-Um yeah, we were a tad liberal back in the day -- but hey, we were in college (and high), at the time.

1992 Paul Tsongas in the democratic primary, George Bush in the general election.
-We made a promise to God that if GB1 got us home from the Gulf War alive we'd vote for him.
-He did, and we did. True story.

1996 No primary vote, Bill Clinton in the general election.
-We look at reelection campaigns as job reviews. He passed ours and deserved another 4 years.

2000 John McCain in the republican primary, George W. Bush in the general election.
-We liked him as our governor. We thought his moderate views would remain unchanged.

2004 No primary vote, Harry S. Truman in the general election.
-Politics, war and economy aside, W got a bad job review, so we voted to fire him.
-He still beat Harry.


Where we stand on the issues:


The War - We have been against the war since 11 September 2001, the day we knew we would end up being led into a war in Iraq. We support those fighting in it, and supported the surge because we felt it had the best chance of bringing resolution to the conflict. In the end however, this is just a bad war fought for bad reasons and we need to end it. However, since we are there, we owe it to the Iraqi people, the soldiers who have served and the region as a whole, to leave Iraq in as good a position as possible. In our opinion, this means a controlled withdrawal.


Health Care - We do not favor a government-subsidized universal health care system in the vein of Canada or France. We do believe health care should be available to every citizen. We do not think a government program should be compulsory. Those who have health care coverage through their employers should continue that coverage. For those who do not, we favor a health care plan that covers three things: preventative, basic and catastrophic care. By covering preventative services such as immunizations, physicals and such, the long-term costs are reduced, but by covering only basic and catastrophic services, we ensure the ethical treatment of all of our citizens, while maintaining financial control of the program. You want an elective procedure? Get a job and pay for it. The program would be administered by the federal government and would be offered on a sliding scale, in relation to the paitent's income.


Welfare - We favor comprehensive welfare reform that essentially does three things: it takes care of the people who can truly not care for themselves; it incents people to transition off of public assistance if they are able to do so; and it sets a hard cap on the period of eligibility for people who can take care of themselves.

The Economy - We feel the economy is an organic entity that has natural cycles that are relatively unaffected by who is in power. Sure, there are certain things that can be done to tweak it here and there, but by and large, we think the less the government does with the economy, the better.


Taxes - We do not mind being taxed -- just spend it right. Pay the bills first. Then have your programs. We do not favor the flat tax, as it is regressive. We think the tax cap should be eliminated. The highest tax bracket is 40%. We favor lowering that to 30% but uncapping it. So if someone makes $30million, they would pay $9million in taxes. Having a 40% tax bracket with a $200,000 cap is unfair to those on the lowest end of that bracket, and ridiculously-low for those at the higher end. $200,000 is .05% of $30million. There is enough tax money being wasted in pork barrel spending right now to take care of everything we need to do for our people. It's a matter of allocating the existing tax base properly.


Immigration - We favor only two requirements for immigration: the successful passing of a background check and financial viability. If you are here illegally, you are protected under international law but not US law. No jobs, housing, school or medical care beyond that which will make you healthy enough for us to drive you back to the border. We favor a 90-day window of amnesty for any illegal immigrants currently within our borders. In that 90 day period, aliens must pass a criminal background check, physical and financial viability test (ie: have a job). If they fail any of these three checks, they are immediately deported to their country of origin. Any illegal aliens caught after the amnesty period are to receive a two-year prison term, followed by immediate deportation. A second offense of illegally entering the country will result in a five-year prison term, forfeiture of all assets and immediate deportation to nation of origin. We honestly feel anyone who can get here and pass the checks should be able to do so. By the same token, if someone is here illegally, they are by definition a criminal and need to be treated as such. And the amnesty we propose is not to, "reward", people here illegally; it just seems to us the most efficient, fiscally-sound way of greatly reducing the number of illegals, so when the new enforcement rules take place, we're dealing with smaller numbers.


Capital Punishment - We believe in the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death. We do not support capital punishment.


Abortion - We believe in the sanctity of human life, from conception until natural death. We do not support abortion rights.

Stem Cell Research -- We believe in the sanctity of human life, from conception until natural death. We agreed with President Bush's initial decision regarding stem cell research and feel the prudence of that path has been borne out by recent developments that strongly suggest adult stem cells can be equally effective as embryonic ones. We oppose any resumption of embryonic stem cell research.

Government -- We believe the federal government should be marginally stronger than the states. We see how education in Alabama compares to Connecticut; how health care in Minnesota compares to that of Arkansas and we do not think states are capable of handling these issues. We look at the federal government as the parent of 50 children, aged 17. They're almost adults and can make many of their own decisions. But when it comes to the major life ones, they need their parents' guidance. Not domination -- guidance. The government is not a panacea. It is there to guide and direct, become involved when necessary and ensure equality of opportunity for everyone, regardless of where they are born.

So, going alphabetically by party, here are our preferences, in inverse order:


Democrats


3 John Edwards, former United States Senator from Tennessee: There is just not a lot of difference amongst the democrats, so much of this will come down to minor issues or intangibles. To wit: Edwards scores a B+ from the ACLU for his voting record. That concerns us. We're no fan of radicals of any stripe and just don't think the personal injury lawyer turned senator will stand up to the extreme liberal wing of his party when he'll need to.

2 Barack Obama, junior Senator from Illinois: We like what he did as a state senator in Illinois. Obama was instrumental in passing bipartisan campaign reform that is widely considered the best in the nation. More importantly, he led the charge for overhauling the state's capital punishment system, an effort that resulted in Illinois being the first state in the nation to make the taping of interrogations and confessions mandatory. He's pro choice and, when pressed, pro capital punishment, albeit in extremely limited cases. So he's not our ideal candidate. And he's a little too pre-packaged for our taste. It's been over five years now since we wrote in a blog, "why is the junior senator from Illinois being rammed down our throat?" It leaves us a little concerned that he can be his own man if nominated. We're not terrified of him winning. But we're not yet convinced.

1 Hillary Clinton, junior senator from New York: We have to admit that a major part of the appeal here is how outraged the radical right will be if Bill moves back into the White House. And we allow that she's wrong on abortion, capital punishment and stem cell research. In her favor however, the NRA gave her an F, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence a rating of 100%. Of the three on the democratic side, she has the most experience in foreign affairs, the area we feel needs immediate attention from the next president. And having Bill Clinton under the same roof cannot be minimized. Whatever people think f the former president, he was very well-liked by world leaders and can do much to mend fences in a Hillary Clinton administration. She's against school vouchers, very much in-line with our feelings and if elected, we feel she could best represent the centrist vision we have for the country. So, we endorse Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination.


Republicans


4 Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas -- We had a hard time here deciding who we least preferred amongst Republicans. I mean, we really dislike Giuliani. But two things saved him from the basement. First was this quote, "I am going to win this country back for Christ." Second was this one, "Just because we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't mean there weren't any." Wow. First off, separation of church and state is one of the principal beliefs this country was founded upon. Some would take it way too far, to mean elimination of God from public life. We think this too is misguided. But to openly state you want to win the nation for Christ is just going too far. We admire his conviction, but that really, really scares us. Second, even most republicans now agree that we were sold a bag of goods when it comes to Iraq. For Huckabee, whether he believes it or not, to actually say in public that there could have been WMD's and that Bush was right in starting this war, shows either a disturbing level of naivete or an equally troubling blind loyalty to a failed policy. He seems like a nice man, but he's not right for the presidency.

3 Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York, NY - To be honest, we don't really care where he is on the issues. He scores low on most of them, but more troubling to us is his personal life. The man has been married three times. He let his mistress move into Gracie Mansion, having dumped his wife in a press conference -- while his children were living in the home. Not only does this make him a horrible human being in our opinion, the fact that he is on his third marriage causes us to seriously question his decision-making ability. If he has promised to love, honor and cherish someone, "for so long as they both shall live", three different times, has failed twice and the jury is still out on number three, how could we possibly trust his commitment to the people of this nation?

2 Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts -- He claims to be pro-life, but supported abortion rights while running for the senate in 1994. He also supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, as if it's the fetus' fault. Limited assault rifles while governor of Massachusetts, but joined the NRA in 2006. Supported same-sex civil unions while governor but now opposes. He's incredibly articulate, and we just like the guy. We also like his approaching government like a business. But he just feels like he'll say whatever it takes to get elected. He has some good ideas on health care though, and we would not be devastated if he were to win the nomination.

1 John McCain, senior Senator from Arizona-- We like moderates. And we like people who stand up to the radicals in their party. That has traditionally been John McCain. We're never going to get everything we want from a candidate, but McCain has the most in common with us in the republican field. We love him on immigration and most financial issues. We're a little troubled by the hard right turn he has taken in the last six months. If he weren't so damned honorable, we'd chalk it up to doing what he has to get elected. But since he is, we know there will be favors to be repaid down the road. Still, if voting in the Republican primary, we're pulling the lever for McCain.

So who do we endorse in the general election? Let's leave that until after the conventions. In the meantime, if you're not sure who you would vote for, or if you'd just like to see if you're really in line with the candidate you think you are, go here and take a survey that rates the candidates against you stand on the issues. There are a couple of pop ups at the end; just click skip on those -- you don't have to fill in the data it asks for, and see who the computer thinks you'll support.

Whoever you support, just make sure you vote. If you don't vote, you can't bitch.

Until next time,
Paz