Yesterday I divided the 45 issues that candidates are talking about into 4 tiers of importance.  Today I’ll look at the top tier of issues, rank them, and give a brief justification of its rank. 

Ideally I would rank the issue without regard to what my personal policy preference is.  But as you’ll see, that’s impossible.  Things where I’m happy with the policy status quo will typically get the short shrift since they don’t seem as important to me.  I was going to try and be neutral about what the policy should be, but gave up on that. 

With nor further ado, starting with the most important… Continue reading »

 

For the past few days, Mike has been ranking the candidates.  While I disagree with much of his ranking (Go Ron Paul! That’s not an endorsement), I don’t know enough about all the candidates, especially the less publicized ones, to be able to post a counter-ranking. 

But an interesting discussion emerged from Mike’s list – which questioned his priorities in terms of issues.  Why did he care so much about torture, and so little about abortion?  So, I have decided to attempt to rate the issues in terms of how important they ought to be in determining the qualifications of a candidate.  Note, I’m not saying which side of the issue the candidate should be on – merely what we should be attending to. Continue reading »

 

The Republican contenders were easy to rank; just about all of them were absurdly unqualified for one reason or another, but they were certainly all different. The Democratic contenders are different in background, education, and style, but policy-wise the differences between the first five on this list are extremely small. As such, the margin between, say, first place and fifth place is a lot slimmer here than on the other side. I’m also much more likely to change my mind, although I will confess that I’ve been leaning towards my top candidate for awhile now. Finally, I would take just about any of these guys over even McCain, the best of the GOP, although I might have to think about it for a minute with the last two.

Continue reading »

 

The Christmas season is just about upon us, which means that I’m about to go on vacation for a couple weeks. And thanks to the absurd little dance that the state parties did this year, the Iowa Caucus will occur before I return. In any case, I figured it was about time for me to figure out who I’m going to vote for; and in my mind, the best way to do that is to go through each of the candidates and actually compare them. As always, I reserve the right to change my mind. In any case, here is a ranking of each Republican candidate as I see them:

Continue reading »

 

A standard, and oft-recited, refrain from political leaders during times of war is that we need to listen to the commanders in the field. It’s a common line, and it sounds good at first blush: after all, the people who are fighting the war must logically know the most about it, and therefore we ought to listen to them. The latest incarnation of the line is being used by Republicans to justify further hawkishness in Iraq in the face of the complete lack of political progress and continuing unpopularity of the conflict. For instance, in Huckabee’s Foreign Affairs policy article, he promises that he “will not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq any faster than General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends.” Sounds logical and reasonable; Petraeus surely knows more about Iraq than Huckabee. Except that turning those decisions over to the military is one of the worst things that any president can ever do.

I remember a football game that Baylor University played a few years ago. They were in the middle of an awful season–Baylor not being known for its football, but for once it looked like they were about to win a game. They were winning by a slim margin (I can’t remember the opponent), there were only a few seconds left on the clock, and they controlled the ball. All they had to do was kill the clock and they would have won. The problem was that they were also on their opponent’s one yard line. The players were psyched about the victory, and wanted to score one more touchdown to lift their spirits just a little further. They convinced their coach to go for the touchdown, so the coach called a run up the middle. The running back fumbled the ball, the opposing team picked it up and ran the distance of the field for a touchdown. The coach listened to his players on the field, instead of keeping his mind on the big picture, and as a result they lost the game.

Continue reading »

© 2012 leftfielder.org Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha