| Posted: 12 September 2008 at 12:21pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Being at work, sometimes these pages fly by before I see them. I was just glancing back and saw where Geoff said:
How do his proposed programs differ substantively from Senator Clinton's?
Part of this is going to depend on the use of “substantively” I guess. What might be a big issue for me may not be a big issue for someone else. Either way, here goes my feelings on this since ideologically, Clinton and Obama aren’t close one two of my biggest things. National Security and Illegal Immigration. National security is my number one issue because of the current world environment and it’s the one that has the biggest influence on my vote more than any other issue. This is all going on memory based on what I found earlier in the year and it’s been months since I had to think about what Clinton’s stance on the issues were.
Iraq War (National Security) – Obama says he was against it from the beginning even though he wasn’t in office in the beginning. One can surmise that if he were in office, if he was being honest, he would have voted against it, as he says. Based on the intelligence provided to Congress, to be against it back in 2002 was the wrong decision (in Congress). So his stance on this is against what I would have wanted (again based on the intelligence we knew of at the time). Clinton voted for it, which went along with my views. There is a fundamental difference between them here on something I feel strongly about (National Security). Of course, hindsight being 20/20, we should never have gone in there, but since Congress couldn’t see the future they had to go with what they were given. Personally, I’m still not sure that the WMD just didn’t make their way to Syria.
In this area there was also the issue of cluster bombs if I’m remembering right. IMO, they are valid for use in a time of war. I completely understand why some people would be against them, but I’m not one of them. Obama wanted to limit them. Clinton didn’t. At times of war, I’m not willing to take any option off the table and do not think that a President who would is fit for the position of Commander in Chief.
I believe Clinton would be a strong Commander in Chief and Obama wouldn’t.
Illegal Immigration – This is one of the few social issues where I do not lean to the left. Clinton was never for allowing illegal immigrants to have driver’s licenses where Obama wanted them to have them. This is a huge, huge issue for me. The word “illegal” in illegal immigrant is there for a reason. These are not “undocumented workers” as some people like to call them. These are criminals. They are breaking the law. I’m for being much harsher on illegal immigration. There is no reason to allow illegal immigrants to have a state issued driver’s license. As a matter of fact, I’d institute extremely harsh financial penalties and jail time for executives at any US company caught employing illegals within our borders. I’d also enact a three-strikes-and-you-are-out law. If an illegal were caught here 3 times they would be banned from ever being approved for citizenship in the future. The mechanism is there for people to apply to come to the US legally. I’m not completely thrilled with Clinton’s stance on illegals but it aligns with my views a lot more than Obama’s does.
Environment – There are some environmental difference between them. If I recall correctly (it’s been a while), Obama was for enforcing auto makers to comply with a high mile per gallon fuel economy on all their vehicles (some where around 40mpg but I might be misremembering) in less than a decade. Clinton was against that that time frame. You can’t fit 50 pounds of rocks in a 10 pound bag. Automakers work years and years in advance of the models currently on the market. Mandating standards is fine as long as there is a reasonable time frame involved. The unrealistic time-frame supported by Obama says to me that he has no understanding of it. Fifteen years maybe, but not less than a decade. Another example is ethanol. Ethanol is a dead end, IMO. When mixed with gasoline it decreases the fuel efficiency. It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of ethanol provides. Any ethanol created from food stuffs just increases the cost of food during a time when the economy cannot handle it. Rather than putting another dime into ethanol we should be focusing on other alternative sources of energy. There are lots of things we can do to help the environment, but tying the hands of an already struggling auto industry is going to hurt the economy even more if it leads to layoffs, bankruptcies and bail outs in the industry. Obama is too “green” for me. There has to be a balance. We can’t get there immediately. We need to use our existing energy sources, including expanding fossil fuels, while, at the same time, investing in new energies and technologies. Then in a decade or two, as the balance starts to shift away from fossil fuels and toward the new technologies/sources we’ll be better off. Even Clinton is too green for me (but not as much as Obama). In this area, McCain is closest to where I fall environmentally.
Geez, that took forever. I’m glad things are a bit slow here today. :P
|
Topic Closed)
