Voter's Guide
Here is a non-partisan voter’s guide distributed by Indiana Family Institute.
http://hoosierfamily.org/docs/VoterGuide06.pdf
As you look through the report, what becomes overtly obvious is that many more democratic candidates declined to answer the survey questions.
The questions are pretty straight-forward and none are really tricky. Many hit some important topics that concern most Indiana residents while others are certainly geared toward more conservative viewpoints. But there still should be no reason to decline answering the questions unless there is a problem with actually standing up for your beliefs.
I believe this is a common trend with the Democratic Party. They are more than willing to state what they believe to be wrong with everyone else and what is wrong with current policies, but I rarely see any of them actually stating publicly what they stand for and how they propose to implement their ideas.
posted by Anonymous at 6:00 AM
13 Comments:
Nice sampling. Using the same logic, am I to conclude from the two Republicans who declined to answer the Tribune's campaign survey that there is a common trend of unresponsiveness in the local GOP?
I'm right with you when it comes to standing up for beliefs, and disappointment in those who don't, but in today's case, it would ne enough for you to register your support for the "conservative viewpoints" without wielding a statistically insignificant sampling as the basis for s sweeping generalization.
Sorry for my typos. I'm a coffee behind for the week.
I can't believe this "non partisan" group left out this question:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I happened to notice that Senator Lugar also chose not reply. I believe the Senator is one of the most respected members by both parties.
There were republicans who chose not to reply. But by my rough count in the House and Senate, there were 94/100 democrats who did not respond.
I think this far exceeds the republicans in this survey or the courier's.
Unfortunately, Republicans have also become a party that can only point to the other side's faults in their campaigns this year because, during the last few years, they have failed to lead on the basis of ideas.
They have failed on important issues such as:
Immigration reform--failure to pass a bill that deals with the heart of the problem. The fence bill that was recently signed by the president treats a small part of the symptoms. It proposes building a fence along 700 miles of our 2,000-mile border with Mexico, yet funds only half of this proposal. The House wanted a better bill, but the president balked at the idea. (Indiana Representative Mike Pence was a key player on this tougher bill who is disappointed with the White House's stance on the issue).
Education Reform--"No Child Left Behind" is a failure on multiple levels. Teachers are forced to "teach to the test" like never before, and this has never been proven to be a good education policy. Unfortunately, the President has advocated this flawed approach since first being elected.
Health Care--I think this blog points out multiple problems in our health care system, but the Medicare Reform that was enacted by Congress and the President does not address the heart of the problem--it only attempts (miserably) to deal with the symptoms.
I could keep going, but the bottom line is that this Congress and this President have been a disappointment. I am a conservative first, republican second, and I have always voted for Republicans. But the elected leadership in Washington, as Rush Limbaugh says, is not conservative. As a result, they have floundered their way into the mess they are in. They have nothing to show for the last few years except for the tax cuts that have improved our economy. But that was a policy that was acted upon several years ago now, and is not reason enough to continue supporting the leaders we have today.
The answer is not to adopt a liberal approach, but to be sure our elected representatives hear our conservative ideas. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I hope this election sends a wake-up call to the Republican party.
In this election, we are witnessing Republicans run on a platform built on the idea that, "at least we're not as bad as the Democrats." This is not enough to rally support, and thus you see the chaos that has ensued.
I do not disagree with any of your thoughts or statements but unfortunately our system is what it is for the time-being.
Neither party is good and I agree with many others that the current 2-party system short changes all of us.
I would support 6-8 year terms with no re-election and paying the politicians more money to do a better job, public funding for candidates, and ridding everyone of the labels democrat, republican etc.
There is no other large fortune 500 company that allows many individuals at the age of some of our politicians to run their companies. Why do we allow them to run our country?
There should be no such career as a "career in politics."
The Democrats' strategy has been to make this election a referendum on the war in Iraq. They've said little else on other issues because the polls are telling them their ahead, so saying anything else might hurt rather than add to their lead.
They're now using the "talking points" strategy that we saw in the 2004 presidential election. Watch any talk show, the Democratic candidate, strategist, or pretend "journalist" answers every question, regardless of what's asked, by harping on Iraq.
One drawback to their reliance on the polls is that respondents who say they are going to vote for the Democrat are less likely to actually go to the polls and vote than the Republican voters.
If one were inclined, hours could be spent calculating the percentages, but it's worth noting that roughly 63% of the candidates polled (altogether) did not repond. There also are numerous races in the Indiana House alone where there aren't two candidates, just one.
The whole exercise is hardly non-partisan in any balanced sense, as was noticed by IamHoosier. The most telling aspect to me is that of the supposedly family-oriented questions offered to the politicians, only two have anything to do with economic matters -- and these are about taxation.
HB wrote: "Neither party is good and I agree with many others that the current 2-party system short changes all of us."
If he truly believes this, then why did he write this post?
The post is written because whether we like it or not, we really only have a two party system and we need to support the one we believe will best represent our interests.
Your postings have certainly shown how you lean and there is no hiding the fact that I believe the Republicans are a far better choice overall.
It is still our civic duty to vote and show our support even if we believe the system is flawed.
This is anonymous 12:19 again.
I agree that sometimes our 2-party system short-changes us. There are myriad and complex reasons why our system is the way it is, but it is true that our government is one of the most efficient democratic governments (as painful as that sounds).
However, I do not support term limits for our congressmen. I value the expertise they develop over time, particularly in foreign affairs. A prime example of this is Senator Lugar. It would be detrimental to our country to lose his expertise, and that of others like him, simply because of term limits. Experience counts in my book, and there is nothing wrong with a life devoted to public service.
I also don't think increasing pay will motivate better performance. Many who are in Congress are not there for the money; they have plenty of it. But I don't think they are paid too much as it is now.
Public funding for campaigns also scares me. I don't think taxpayers should pay for that--perhaps the fiscal conservative in me that sees a tax hike in order to pay for public campaign financing. (As a side note, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is unconsitutional, and it is embarassing that the President signed it into law).
I wouldn't have answered this either. Anyone, either Democrat or Republican who answers an obviously partisan survey trying to pigeonhole a person with so few choices is a fool.
The two questions on terrorism.
Immediate withdrawal. That's the only option. Why couldn't this have been asked, "Should we 'stay the course" and do what we have been doing. If someone asked it that way it would appear to be biased...and this question is. There have to be a lot more solutions than staying the course or immediate withdrawal. Bogus question.
Second question, define aid and/or abet. Does this include Syria AND France? The way I hear it, many people include France's lack of support for our endeavor aiding and abetting. Syria, however, does aid and abet.
Speaking of the war... Christianity has long held the principles of "Jus ad bellum," which are old and long standing, but expected that if Christians go to war that these ought to be followed. I'll give you Wikipedia's definition which is shortened and simplified but states my point:
When is a war just by the criteria of Just War Theory? (Jus ad bellum)
In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum):
* Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave public evil (e.g., a massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations) or in defense;
St Augustine categorised just cause into three elements that justified warfare
* defending against an external attack
* recapturing things taken
* punishing people who have done wrong
A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"
* Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
* Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
* Right Intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose- correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
* Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
* Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[6]
* Last Resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Using this long standing ethical principle, is our war in Iraq a 'just war?' That question, an obvious ethical question, is missing.
Education:
There are no further options on education? Perhaps it might be helpful to advise people that doing what this question proposes would devastate public school funding.
Health. Embryonic stem cells are the direct by-product of invitro fertilization. These stems cells exist because of another medical procedure and they are currently either frozen or destroyed. Perhaps the question needs to be expanded to give people a wider parameter of understanding.
The Social Security question requires people to have some education in their response. What we are paying in NOW is what is making the payments for our seniors, NOW. Social Security is not a pension plan it's a tax that is used to provide an income to seniors. It is also a highly regressive tax insofar as the fact that the percentage has a salary cap on it meaning that the people with the highest incomes pay a lower percentage. Somehow something is missing on this question.
Not to mention some other principles.
Jesus' greatest priority was caring for the poor. I missed the questions on this in helping the poor.
Many serious pro-life advocates promote a the seamless garment principle putting abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia under the same, single, category. Why no questions on the morality of capital punishment?
Physician assisted suicide is one thing. Allowing a person to die naturally, terminating treatment, is a separate ethical issue. Classically, in Christian ethics, it has been ethically permissable for a person to seek or to not seek treatment using extra-ordinary means.
I've overstated my point, but this survey is seeking opinions from candidates without providing the necessary education to see what is actually being chosen.
I gotta tell you, I think my eyes are failing. It takes me 3-4 times to figure out these crazy word verifications. Ugh.
I think everyone can learn from this statement.
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
Winston Churchill
Post a Comment
<< Home