Share
If Huckabee actually managed to get into office, who knows what policies he would have initiated. He's dared to raise class issues, showing that at least he has taken some of the Gospels seriously. While he was governor of Arkansas, he took the poorest people of the state off the tax rolls and showed that he was a forgiving person by having a generous parole policy (when the current fashionable solution is to just keep throwing people in prison).
Huckabee's candidacy is bound to eventually fail, but nevertheless he has made it clear to the Republican Party that the fundamentalist vote may no longer be so willing to fall in line behind whomever the GOP declares they should follow.
Ron Paul has managed to fill a void long sought after by people -- one of genuinely challenging the status quo. The only problem is, the system he wants to institute would be barbaric and insane, and wouldn't work anyway.
He wants a system where people are cogs in a machine and unable to challenge their corporate overlords. He wants to end the tiny and ungenerous welfare system we have. He thinks that things are best left to "the market."
Anyone who's marginally studied "the market" knows that it isn't so-called "free trade" that drives innovation -- it comes out of the state sector. It was the Pentagon, using our tax dollars, that developed the Internet, telecommunications, computers and other technological developments. Corporations spend almost all their money on marketing, not research. This makes sense because, well, their main concern is making money, not helping the consumer.
His foreign policy position of non-interventionism is attractive, even if it's for the wrong reasons. The problem is that while he wants to leave Iraq, there's no talk of paying reparations to the Iraqi people for what we've done to them. He also wants to withdraw from the United Nations, and in the name of isolationism will no doubt ignore international treaties if he sees fit (because the "one world government" may try to impose its will on us).
The remaining field of Republican candidates has some interesting characters, but the one who will win -- John McCain -- will continue the spiral of death in Iraq. Whichever Democrat eventually gets the nomination doesn't offer much of an alternative.
Hillary Clinton's record is clear while Obama goes around talking in generalities about "change." Ralph Nader has formed an exploratory committee and he may end up once again being the only candidate who offers a genuine departure from business-as-usual.
Continue Reading: « Previous12
Leave a comment 7 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Obama talks about "change" all the time, but what kind of "changes" did he make for the people of Illinois when he was a senator? Did his "changes" make a difference in people's lives?
Reply to this Top
I'm not even really sure where to start criticising this column, because all it seems to contain is a bunch of liberal talking points that have been trumpeted over and over for years. Asserting that the war in Iraq was directed primarily at protecting our oil interests in the region is simply ignorant of how and from where the US draws its oil supply, and also displays ignorance of the horrors the Iraqi people endured under the Hussein regime. While I'll admit that claims that their lives are demonstrably better now than then are prehaps dubious, it seems to me that we have provided them at least a chance at positive change that the Iraqi people did not have before. It troubles me that this column doesn't address any of the questionable policies being bandied about by the Democratic candidates - the specter of socialism looms over our nation and Mr. Morris doesn't even twitch.
Reply to this Top
Kyle's opening sentence pretty much sums it up for me. This is probably the most inaccurate title for an opinion piece I've seen in the CT yet - and that's saying a lot. A better title would have been, "Why the Republicans Suck."
Reply to this Top
Hear hear! (to those below)
Reply to this Top
You are right Kyle. Anytime someone dares to make a statement that goes against the current Bush Administration or the Iraq War or any failed policy we have endured over the past 8 years, is simply classified as "liberal talking points." That is the problem with this country today; we are unable to conduct political dialogue on some of our most important issues because people are so closed-minded and focused on making everything politically-affiliated. What has happened to political discourse in this country? I know where you can find it; his name is Barack Obama. It is up to the citizens of America to accept the fact!
Reply to this Top
If you'll take the time to read my comments, you'll find that I have tremendous respect for people who have real data and real opinions on the matter, even when those opinions run contrary to my own. I have, myself, many criticisms of the Bush administration, not least of which is his handling of the budget and the manner in which the early years of the Iraq war were conducted. My issue with this column is that it simply announces, without any real proof or insight, that the Iraq war was led simply to protect oil interests, that free-market capitalism is damaging to society, that a US withdrawal from the UN would be an act of lunacy. The fact of the matter is, our political system is what makes the 'big decisions' for us - as a result, opinions on these issues are NECESSARILY politically-affiliated because it gives us a way to categorize the candidates in a way that makes sense to ourselves. I'd charge the the discourse, both in this country and on this forum, is certainly wide open - ironically, your charge that I am stifling debate (and, I presume, that I should stop saying things like 'these are liberal talking points') itself supposes that your comments are superior to my own, consequently limiting the political discourse that occurs. Also, I'm not quite sure I understand your final point - Barack Obama is every bit as polarizing a candidate as each of the others. The fact that he's young and trumpets big plans for 'change' (important to note that he never really nails down what he is going to change) doesn't necessarily imply that he is the best candidate for me or anyone else.
Reply to this Top
Wow. This column's fairly sensible title drew me to give it a chance, and all I find is "John McCain is the devil, Mike Huckabee is too Christian, and Ron Paul is nuts" strewn out over 13 or so paragraphs. Mr. Morris had a golden opportunity to be a productive member of the CT staff, using his column to address what the title SHOULD have alluded to. Instead he delivered blatant, shameless candidate bashing. As is, this is another in a long line of recent embarrassing columns and editorials by the Collegiate Times. To make this a perfectly legitimate editorial that would not have retracted from what I THINK Mr. Morris intended to say, would have been to also include criticisms of the Democratic candidates, and to change the headline to "Why Ralph Nader is Still the Best Option."
Reply to this Top