The Perfect Candidate

[Chefzhat]

I'm spinning off from the Presidential thread here. I stated that I would vote republican - not because I specifically support George Bush, but I do find that most republican platform issues are ones that I agree with. I am however, more liberal than the die-hard republican. So, here's what my perfect candidate would be:

1. Cut my taxes. Enough aleady. And all those tax cuts that people were whining about 'cause they didn't get enough - we didn't get any. We make too much. Same with child tax deduction - we make too much. College tuition credits? Forget it - we make too much. Credit for mortgage interest paid? Again, make too much. Forgive me, but my kids are my kids - we should be able to get the same tax credits as everyone else. And, to the argument that we are able to shelter income - most tax shelters have been abolished and those are not available.

2. Supports, really supports education. Supports funding for both public and private education. I want the choice to be able to send my child where it benefits him the most, public or private.

3. Abolishes pork barrel spending. Or at least limits it for a period of a couple of years.

4. Quit sending our young boys into armed conflicts. This is my emotion talking here, but as a mother it breaks my heart to think of other mothers losing their most precious possessions. Again, purely emotional.

5. Aim to close the trade gap with Japan. It's time.

6. Limits corporations from moving to countries that don't have to meet the same environmental goals that we do. Or, loosening governmental restrictions on the US so we can keep more jobs here.

7. Cut paperwork. Business owners, physicians, etc fill out so much paperwork - it's unreal.

8. Cut overhead. Do we really need a Federal Education department, state education departments, county education departments, and local school boards? Can't something be eliminated?? Or - let's fund education first, then fund all the levels and layers of oversight. Start funding from the bottom up.

9. Encourages research that provides for better quality of life.

10. Change social security funding requirements. I'll probably never see the money we've poured into the system. Let me keep some - I'll invest it myself.

11. Children are our future - invest in them.

That not the whole list, and I'm not saying that these are right, wrong, or indifferent.

[stefania4]

I'm a die-hard Democrat, and I like a lot of your ideas Chefzhat! Here are a few of mine:

a) Make environmental protection a high priority.
b) If taxes can't be cut then they should be spent more wisely (domestic discretionary spending has gone up 31% since Bush took office; it grew by an average 3.4% under Clinton's watch).
c) It is appalling that, in this day and age, women have to fight for the human right of having dominion over their own bodies and for first-class citizenship. Roe v. Wade should never, ever be threatened.
d) Enforce separation of church and state.
e) This isn't a big issue to me personally and in this election it wouldn't sway my vote, but for the sake of designing a great candidate I'd say they should support the right of homosexuals to marry.
f) My ideal candidate would begin rebuilding positive relationships with other countries, including France. That means working with the UN and signing into the Kyoto treaty.
g) Against the death penalty. We have a system that favors the wealthy and disproportionately punishes racial minorities and the poor. OJ is free, Kenneth Lay is free, and dozens of people (mostly black) served decades on death row before DNA technology came into being and proved they could not have committed the crimes for which they were wrongly sentenced. Should we really trust this system with life and death?

[Kristilyn1]

Originally posted by stefania4
I'm a die-hard Democrat, and I like a lot of your ideas Chefzhat! Here are a few of mine:

a) Make environmental protection a high priority.
b) If taxes can't be cut then they should be spent more wisely (domestic discretionary spending has gone up 31% since Bush took office; it grew by an average 3.4% under Clinton's watch).
c) It is appalling that, in this day and age, women have to fight for the human right of having dominion over their own bodies and for first-class citizenship. Roe v. Wade should never, ever be threatened.
d) Enforce separation of church and state.
e) This isn't a big issue to me personally and in this election it wouldn't sway my vote, but for the sake of designing a great candidate I'd say they should support the right of homosexuals to marry.
f) My ideal candidate would begin rebuilding positive relationships with other countries, including France. That means working with the UN and signing into the Kyoto treaty.
g) Against the death penalty. We have a system that favors the wealthy and disproportionately punishes racial minorities and the poor. OJ is free, Kenneth Lay is free, and dozens of people (mostly black) served decades on death row before DNA technology came into being and proved they could not have committed the crimes for which they were wrongly sentenced. Should we really trust this system with life and death?

Just for the record, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state".

Since when is the right to have an abortion a "human right?"
While I don't agree with abortion in all it's shapes and forms--I am not a die hard right to lifer either. But to couch abortion as a human right---seems more than a little weird, not to mention wrong.

I am not picking on you Stefania, though you probably won't believe it. I don't agree with your other choices either, but these two I felt I really needed to comment on. My perfect candidate? A slightly tweaked George Bush with a strong stance on immigration.

Kristi

[jmarie]

Forgive me, but my kids are my kids - we should be able to get the same tax credits as everyone else.

Amen! I hear you!

I want the choice to be able to send my child where it benefits him the most, public or private.

To me, this is ONLY fair! Scientologists receive tax credits, for education, but no one else does???????

Abolishes pork barrel spending

I say stick with ABOLISHING IT!

Quit sending our young boys into armed conflicts.

It is heart breaking and when I expressed this to my mom, her only comment was "What makes your generation think it is better than any of the previous generations? Women havealways sent their sons to war, this is nothing new."

Aim to close the trade gap with Japan.

Yes! Do it NOW!

Limits corporations from moving to countries that don't have to meet the same environmental goals that we do. Or, loosening governmental restrictions on the US so we can keep more jobs here.

GREAT IDEA! Wish someone would listen!

Cut paperwork. Business owners, physicians, etc fill out so much paperwork - it's unreal.

Do you think anyone really reads it?

Or - let's fund education first, then fund all the levels and layers of oversight.

Or better yet, make Central office for all of these Boards, accountable for their spending. Some of the salaries and perks are ridiculous! Positions being created for cronies....it is terrible the waste of taxpayers money!

Encourages research that provides for better quality of life.

YES!

Change social security funding requirements. I'll probably never see the money we've poured into the system. Let me keep some - I'll invest it myself.

Was this really what SS was intended for? I see people trying to get SSI benefits, claiming fake injuries....bleeding the system.

Children are our future - invest in them.

Absolutely!
And these are all well thought out ideas! Have you considered running?
Joyce

[aggie94]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
Just for the record, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state".

Sure there is. Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in 1802:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

For the record, his quotation is from the First Amendment, and he coined the phrase "separation of church and state" to describe the principle of the First Amendment's prohibition against government-established religion.

[Kristilyn1]

Originally posted by aggie94


Sure there is. Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in 1802:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

For the record, his quotation is from the First Amendment, and he coined the phrase "separation of church and state" to describe the principle of the First Amendment's prohibition against government-established religion.

I'm know you didn't mean this to be misleading but I think it's important to point out to others that, the First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I think the most important part of this for my argument is:

or prohibiting the free exercise of It doesn't say in there: except for at school, or except in public buildings. As a constitutionalist---while I value Jefferson's comments---those particular comments are NOT included in the First Amendment, therefore they are not a part of our Constitution. When I say there is no "separation of church and state" I simply mean that there is nothing that PROHIBITS people from practicing their religious beliefs, or even a ban against religious icons, etc. Congress cannot make a LAW that endorses a state religion. As the Declaration of Independence says "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" when I read that, it seems clear to me that the drafters felt that we are a people with rights granted by a higher being, now they don't NAME that being--but it's mentioned.

I think you'll find most people like me think it's very important to read the Constitution and apply it quite literally, not try to interpret what people may have meant by it. Which is the unfortunate job of the Supreme Court, or at least that used to be their job........

Kristi

[MusicMom]

Back to the original question--

My ideal candidate would be someone who has intelligence, compassion, a willingness to consider all sides of an issue, and the ability to articulate himself/herself. See Jed Bartlett on The West Wing.

On the issue of separation of church and state, most references to the phrase that I've heard are citing the very first part of the first amendment- that Congress shall make no laws establishing a religion. That's the "separation" between government and religion- no branch of government should mandate or endorse a particular religion. Our personal freedom to express our religion is protected by the same amendment as our right to not be required to participate in a publicly endorsed religious activity.

[lisas3575]

Stephanie's perfect candidate is mine also.

Ideally, my (our? ) candidate would also be articulate, accountable and have integrity.

[aggie94]

Kristi,

I'm well aware of what the First Amendment says, and I am surprised you found my post "misleading" -- I thought it was rather clear that in no way was I or anyone else claiming that the First Amendment uses the phrase "separation of church and state." Like I said, that phrase comes from a description of what the phrase "establishment of religion" (not the free exercise clause, as you stated) in the Constitution means.

It is the job of courts (all courts, not just the Supreme Court) to interpret laws. The legislative branch makes laws; the executive branch enforces law; the judicial branch interprets laws -- that's Civics 101. It would be impossible to enforce laws without interpreting them. Many statutes and laws are written by average citizens with no legal training or background and thus are extremely poorly written and vague. That's what the courts are there for; to figure out the intent of poorly written or ambiguous laws. If they get it wrong, which they do, then it's the legislature's job to go back and fix their law to read more clearly in line with what they originally intended. That happens all the time.

The Supreme Court has a long history of interpreting the establishment clause of the First Amendment to reflect a separation of church and state. So far, I don't see anyone scrambling to amend the Constitution to say they got it wrong.

[Jessica]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
When I say there is no "separation of church and state" I simply mean that there is nothing that PROHIBITS people from practicing their religious beliefs, or even a ban against religious icons, etc.

Kristi

I think this is where it gets confusing. The point of the anti-establishment clause is to provide a society in which no single religion is supported by the state and its representatives. No one should be prevented from practicing their beliefs or wearing/displaying religious icons, unless it is in the course of a government-sponsored activity, or on government property.

To get back to the original question, my dream candidate:

• Thinks for him or herself and is willing to sacrifice votes in order to stand up for his/her ideas and policies.
• Upholds Roe v. Wade and supports family planning education. I respect that there are other viewpoints on this subject. I am entitled to my opinion, which is that abortion should be a decision between a woman and her doctor, as well as her partner if she is not the victim of sexual violence. I am far more interested in preventing abortion at the source, by educating people about responsible sexual conduct and birth control.
• Supports full civil rights for gay citizens.
• Supports a national health care plan.
• Has creative ideas for building our job base and providing work for unemployed and underemployed people.
• Is willing to dismantle and rebuild Social Security before it bankrupts the country. It doesn't work as a welfare program. It doesn't work as a retirement program. It simply doesn't work.
• Supports alternative energy sources and research to increase these options.
• Respects the viewpoints of those who disagree with him or her and expresses interest in hearing alternate opinions.
• Can combine rhetoric, ideas and actions to inspire the American people. I want a real leader who will bring a fresh approach to our nation's problems and help us become a stronger country in the 21st century.

See Jessica in her fantasy world...where the sky is pink and the elephants are purple.

Great topic, Debie!!!

[Kristilyn1]

Originally posted by aggie94


Sure there is. Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in 1802:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

For the record, his quotation is from the First Amendment, and he coined the phrase "separation of church and state" to describe the principle of the First Amendment's prohibition against government-established religion.

That's why I clearly stated that I knew you weren't trying to mislead. But in reading above it says "his quotation is from the First Amendment". I just wanted OTHER people who may not read that carefully to see that the whole thing isn't from the amendment. That's all.

Actually quite a lot of conservatives believe they've interpreted it incorrectly. Amongst other things:

gun control. I can't say the Constitution provides all kinds of opportunities to regulate who has guns or how many, or even what kind, etc.

Maybe the most famous interpretation: "separate but equal" a doctrine since found to be wrong. I know that it's the courts job to interpret laws---thanks for MY civics lesson. I just mean that I'm unhappy with the way they sometimes interpet them and how far afield they go from the actual Constitution. Their ability to strike down law comes from an idea that a law is Unconstitutional, not from an idea that a law is unpopular or stupid.

I may be reading your post in the wrong spirit, but I'm not trying to "educate" you on the Constitution. I am merely sharing MY views on it to people who may not have thought about it or know much about it. I'd like to assume that you are doing the same, but it seems like you are getting a little upset with me here. I know I'm not going to change your mind, as you won't change mine, but there are a lot of people out there who may find it interesting to hear our debate and decide to do their own research and decide for themselves.

Kristi

[lisas3575]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
... but there are a lot of people out there who may find it interesting to hear our debate and decide to do their own research and decide for themselves.

Kristi

In that spirit, you may want to move your debate to this on-topic thread, so this one can stay more on track.

[Kristilyn1]

Originally posted by lisas3575


In that spirit, you may want to move your debate to this on-topic thread, so this one can stay more on track.

thanks for policing the thread. But I'm fine right here. I actually don't think I'll have much more to add, I don't want to start beating a dead horse.

Kristi

[aggie94]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
That's why I clearly stated that I knew you weren't trying to mislead. But in reading above it says "his quotation is from the First Amendment". I just wanted OTHER people who may not read that carefully to see that the whole thing isn't from the amendment. That's all.

Sorry, Kristi. I do see how my post might have been misleading now. When I referred to Jefferson's quotation being from the First Amendment, I meant his quotation, not mine -- the actual part of his letter that was surrounded by quotes, the "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" comment. After you pointed that out, I can see how someone might have thought I was referring to the whole italicized section being a quote from the First Amendment, which it is not. Thank you for clarifying.

And FWIW, I'm not upset with you. I know we disagree on a lot of subjects, but you might be surprised to find that I agree with you on many others, and I know we share a common interest in running. I don't hold grudges just because someone offers a different opinion from mine, even one I think is wrong. As long as people can engage in intelligent, respectful debate, I welcome hearing other viewpoints. True, they rarely if ever change my mind. But it's still good to hear another person's perspective, even one I don't agree with.

It was not my intent to educate you on the Constitution, as it's clear that you are already knowledgeable and articulate about it. It was my intent, though, to clarify your comment that "there is no such thing as separation of church and state." I understand that you meant that the Constitution doesn't expressly use those words, but I thought your post might mislead people into believing that the concept of separation of church and state doesn't exist, which it does. Sure, it might be court-created instead of mandated by the Constitution, but it does exist.

And I apologize for the "civics lesson" -- I apparently misunderstood your comment about the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. It read to me as though you believed the Court should not be interpreting the law, not necessarily that the Court should not be interpreting the law the way that it does. That clearly is a debatable opinion while the former is not. I just wanted to make sure others understood that the courts are there to interpret the law; we might not like the way they do it, but it is still their job. Again, I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

Sorry Debie and Lisa. Back to your regularly-scheduled topic......

[Kristilyn1]

well good, I'm glad you're not upset with me! I'm not upset with you either. Of course, reading back on MY post about the courts....I can see why THAT would be misleading! My bad.

I think it's been an interesting debate, thanks for sharing it.

Kristi