POLITICS - Iowa Cauc Party
The big Iowa Caucus is finally here. DailyKos has the best coverage right now, if you're interested in the day-to-day specifics. Dean is still the wild card in the race, and tonight we'll find out what type of support he really has. I don't want to make any predictions (what the heck: Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Gephart), but I'll give a brief rundown of thoughts on the top four in Iowa.
John Kerry - I like this guy. He voted yes on the war, but no on the $87B supplemental request. Is this waffling? It depends on your capacity to debate issues. If you are only capable of binary thought processing, it could be waffling. If you realize that this is a muddy, dynamic issue, then you can attempt to understand Kerry's nuanced position.
In addition, he is pro-choice, opposes the death penalty, and supports civil unions. He opposes marijuana decriminilization, but so do all the other main candidates. I'd love to see him take the first or second slot in Iowa, and I'd personally love to see him get the nomination.
Richard Gephardt - I don't want to dislike him. He's a decent, hard-working man. He shares a common background with millions of Americans. But he was a key Democrat supporter of establishing the Department of Homeland Defense and helped author the resolution to go to war. I do admire that he reversed his ideology in the 80s to become a vocal supporter of women (reproductive) and gay rights. But I am slightly bothered that he waited so long in his life to realize the importance of those issues. That's why I can find reasons to support other candidates before Dick.
John Edwards - My views on Edwards are close to Kerry's. He supported the war resolution, but not Bush's "blank check" supplemental request. His policy proposals are well-researched and logical. I'm just not sure if he's ready for "prime time" or not.
John Dean - I like Dean, but he needs to find some Pepto Bismol, because he's got a bad case of vocal diarrhea. He's not my first choice for the nomination, even though he might be the candidate that the Dems need right now.
John Kerry - I like this guy. He voted yes on the war, but no on the $87B supplemental request. Is this waffling? It depends on your capacity to debate issues. If you are only capable of binary thought processing, it could be waffling. If you realize that this is a muddy, dynamic issue, then you can attempt to understand Kerry's nuanced position.
In addition, he is pro-choice, opposes the death penalty, and supports civil unions. He opposes marijuana decriminilization, but so do all the other main candidates. I'd love to see him take the first or second slot in Iowa, and I'd personally love to see him get the nomination.
Richard Gephardt - I don't want to dislike him. He's a decent, hard-working man. He shares a common background with millions of Americans. But he was a key Democrat supporter of establishing the Department of Homeland Defense and helped author the resolution to go to war. I do admire that he reversed his ideology in the 80s to become a vocal supporter of women (reproductive) and gay rights. But I am slightly bothered that he waited so long in his life to realize the importance of those issues. That's why I can find reasons to support other candidates before Dick.
John Edwards - My views on Edwards are close to Kerry's. He supported the war resolution, but not Bush's "blank check" supplemental request. His policy proposals are well-researched and logical. I'm just not sure if he's ready for "prime time" or not.
John Dean - I like Dean, but he needs to find some Pepto Bismol, because he's got a bad case of vocal diarrhea. He's not my first choice for the nomination, even though he might be the candidate that the Dems need right now.
posted by Hot_Tuna at 6:20:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home