Support Your Local Gunfighter…or Politician Tonight
By Guest Blogger on Mon 11 Feb 2008 |
Email This Post
By Alok Doshi
With such extensive media coverage surrounding both Republican and Democratic primaries, one would assume that some of that craziness would rub off on DeafDC.com readers. Alas, it does seem quiet here with the exception of Swetha Amruthur’s column, “Obama & Change: The Non-Existent Platform“. Gallaudet protests are a thing of the past so have we returned to calmness or are there still issues that concern us especially with the upcoming primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia?
Well you know what … I am going to try and raise a ruckus here.
Potomac Primary
Chesapeake Primary
Mid-Atlantic Primary
Crab Cake Primary
Whatever you want call it: Tuesday February 12th is a big day for the Metropolitan Washington area. Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia will allow its residents to vote in the Democratic primary to determine who our next Presidential nominee shall be.
Historically, the nominee of the Democratic Party is already a foregone conclusion by the time the primary begins here in MD and DC (I am not sure about VA). I voted for John Edwards in 2004 but I knew John Kerry was the nominee – the same is true for Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1196.
For the first time in a long while, the importance of the primary is paramount here. We actually do not know who the nominee will be therefore our vote will weigh more. One million Democrats are expected to cast their ballots in Maryland on Tuesday. What percentage of that number correlate to deaf voters? DC? VA? Does our voice carry great weight just as other defined groups such as Hispanics, African-Americans, Women, working class Democrats, etc? While we may not number in millions as compared to others, I would like to think we as part of the Disability movement does carry such influence.
Disclosure: I am an Obama supporter. In response to Swetha Amruthur’s column, I posted comments that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have run substantive campaigns. My stance comes from preferring his style of governing, character, judgment, and integrity because I honestly believe both candidates’ policy proposals are similar with a great difference in foreign policy. However, the credit should go to John Edwards. He was the first to put forward proposals on Domestic policies (economy, healthcare). The other 2 candidates were forced to respond to him and adopt some of his policy features and in essence forcing the Democratic Party to adopt them as their platform. This is not an easy accomplishment and I applaud him.
However, I really want to understand why there are Hillary supporters and I would go further and ask why some people would still vote Republican despite the recent years. It’s a vexing question if we cannot share our thoughts. On that note, I am going to hold an impromptu/informal discussion Monday evening. I welcome supporters from both camps as well as Republicans to hear their thoughts.
Please feel free to post comments here expressing your opinions in response to this blog!
The discussion will be held at the Barnes & Noble Bookstore in Bethesda, MD at 8 pm either in the upstairs café or in the downstairs section. Click here for information for the bookstore.
Sharing thoughts is important but the most important thing for you to do is: VOTE!
Alok Doshi is simply mesmerized by the state of politics in 2008. A MBA graduate from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, Alok is also a RIT graduate. During his free time, Alok likes to perpetuate the deaf poker craze at the National Deaf Poker Tour.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
20 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi there… maybe I’ll see you tonight.
But I wanted to point out one thing. You wrote:
“However, I really want to understand why there are Hillary supporters and I would go further and ask why some people would still vote Republican despite the recent years.”
I hope I am not taking you the wrong way, but does this mean that you think Hillary Clinton supporters and Republicans are noobs? That you have an ‘enlightened’ perspective in contrast with those who do not share the same views as you?
I know this isn’t probably what you mean but that’s the way I interpreted it and it’s probably a defensive mechanism on my part anyway. I also would like to add that there is no one ‘right’ perspective, especially in politics.
My choice of words may have been poor - my intention is to draw folks who support Hillary or Republicans in order for me to understand who they are and why they chose that perspective - this is more of my attempt to understand others - there’s no “right” or “wrong” here.
How about you explain us your reasons for supporting Obama? How can a mere impression about his “governing style, character, judgment, and integrity” possibly outweight Clinton’s real experience on the field?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com.....pri_1.html
Take a look at the comment by glinderman10 - probably a good rebuttal. Experience to me means substance, judgment, and credibility - not longevity. I have seen people do more in 10 years than others does in 20 years.
This blog was not meant to endorse Obama as much as trying to raise the level of political debate among us deafies which is why I asked folks to come last night. So far, the comments here seems spirited and intelligent - I want to see more coming.
Who said I was referring to longevity when I was talking about Clinton’s experience with politics? Substance, judgement and credibility are also representative of my definition of experience. I guess that we at least agree on this one definition :)
I’ll be there. Need to buy books anyway.
There might be some reasons to vote Republican:
Small government, let each state determine what works for that state, rather than “one size fits all”.
A fair tax rate that doesn’t punish people for trying to succeed at the American dream (such as, starting a business, and, gasp, horrors of horrors, getting rich!)
Keeping government out of the bedroom.
And so on.
Keeping the government out of the bedroom? Thought that was a liberal thing :)
Oh and small government? Reagan and Bush ran budget deficit to record levels while we saw surplus during Clinton’s years.
Small government, see: Ron Paul
It’s this very paradox why I am asking Republicans to come forward and comment here. Bill Clinton shrunk the federal government and created a surplus and was more pro-free trade than Bush was. Under W, we have created a huge deficit, expanded the government, and (this is open to interpretation), eroding of civil liberties.
Warren Buffet (the second richest man) has said that our tax system is not fair and should be progressive. I agree folks should become rich if given the opportunity (are they getting that?)
Alok,
I’m a Republican. Can you please describe the actual influence that our Presidents have had (and still have) on the economy? Did Bush’s tax cut really do it in? If so, when exactly did it take effect?
I think Robert Samuelson’s column best explains how I feel about this constant, never-dying myth: http://www.newsweek.com/id/108382
This is a loaded issue and I would love to debate this with you in detail another time but in short: John F Kennedy, a Democrat, cut tax rates from 90% to 67% then Reagan went further to 30% and Bill Clinton stabilized it at 32 or 32% so it doesn’t matter which party (numbers could be wrong but you get the idea). I respect many Republicans like Chuck Hagel or Charles Grassley or even Tom Davis of VA because they are pragmatic.
As for the President’s influence, they can affect how citizens buy houses or meet our daily needs. For example, Presidents and Congress can reform the tax code and if they take Buffet’s advice, progressive tax codes would work - i.e. poor folks pay less taxes and save more for their daily needs and you work your way up. This is different from tax cuts.
For the record, I am a fiscal pragmatist who supports cuts in our federal spending i.e. earmarks and entitlement reform.
actually there is the public debt and federal debt. Yes, Clinton cut some programs liek SSI and SSDI plus some many welfare programs since he was left-of-centrist. And some of his very liberal friends who are very rich and highly educated, opposed this. like the Children’s Rights Fund and her husband.
… however people need to remember that this election is not a smile contest. Obama might have a great personality, great character, makes people feel at ease around him? Good. The only problem here is that America’s ennemies don’t give a damn about how white Obama’s teeths are. What the United States need is a president that continues to give the impression that “America means business” - be it about the environment or the fight against the spreading of fundamentalism in certain parts of the world. Clinton seems to be a little too bitchy for your taste? Good. We don’t need someone who’ll appease the Osamas, Ahmadinejhad, Sistanis, Assads, Husseins (of Saudi Arabia, mind you), Khadafis, etc. of this world. Imagine what a woman as the next US President will mean for the improvement of women’s rights in, say, the Middle East for example? Granted, health care, and all the other domestic issues are of great importance too but in this ever increasing world of globalization, one simply cannot ignore the importance of foreign policy. Foreign policy is a lot more than just meeting with dignitaries from other countries and signing a couple of bilateral agreements.
To “I can smile well too”,
Bush is good at “showing that America means business”. That sure did wonders. Realistically, the causes of Islamic extremism are much more complicated than them “hating our freedom” and can’t be vanquished by our president intimidating them.
I’m not so sure that Ron Paul would make a good president but he’s a straight talker and made quite a few excellent points: “We didn’t have to invade their country. But to deal with terrorism, we can’t solve the problem if we don’t understand why they [attack us]. And they don’t come because we’re free and prosperous. They don’t go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we’ve occupied their land, and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries and then threatening a third. Why wouldn’t they be angry at us? It would be absolutely bizarre if they weren’t. We’ve been meddling over there for more than 50 years. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953; we were Saddam Hussein’s ally and encouraged him to invade Iran. If I was an Iranian, I’d be annoyed myself, you know. So we need to change our policy, and I think we would reduce the danger.”
Exactly :)
In a perfect world, that’s how things should work, don’t provoke your neighbor (or anyone else, that is), and he should leave you alone too.
Only… we don’t live in a perfect world. The human mind in this part of the world, the Middle-East, seems to be operating in a very different way than it does in the Western world. Case in point: the Gaza disengagement and withdrawal from southern Lebanon about a decade ago, by the Israeli government. These were pure acts of good faith, destined to give the Gazans and Lebanese a chance to prove to their neighbor and the world that they would be able to “self-govern” and reciprocate friendly acts towards their neighbor. Not to get too much into details about what ensued after -I’m sure you’ve been following the news- but to this days, Quassam rockets are still pouring in the hundreds on a daily basis in Israeli cities neighboring the Gaza strip. What does this tell you? Not a very nice response, eh?
Yes, the US doesn’t share direct borders with any of these countries but that doesn’t protect the country either (as we all saw on 9/11). This just to say that, infortunately, you need to constantly be on your guards in such an imperfect world. Leave your guard down and remove the Iranian paramilitary from the US blacklist of terror organisations as Obama intelligently suggested, and you can be certain that Ahmadinejhad will take this to his advantage. To do what, I leave this to your imagination.
so you sayin that if the US had not meddled with the middle east affairs for the last 50 years, 9/11 would have happened anyway?
What exactly do you call “meddling in the middle east affairs”? The US didn’t exactly invade any middle-east countries before the Afghanistan/Iraq wars. The US lent support to some questionnable leaders a couple decades ago? Tell me what the alternatives were, then. Don’t every countries in our world take sides in terms of what’s best for their own interests? Are we also meddling in the Kosovo affairs for supporting their independance claims?
Your point being…? I read, re-reread, and re-read your article and I don’t even know what statement you are trying to make. It’s rather poorly witten. It’s a jumble of personal opinions and supposely ‘facts’ which I don’t see reference to sources to support them. Forced to accept Senator Edward’s platform on particular policies? Why vote for a republican candidate, despite recent years. What recent years? President Bush is a republican, you know. So we have had a republican president for eight years. Your statement doesn’t even make sense. Even so, are you asking why we would vote for a republican? Isn’t that our choice? After all, we live in the United States of America, the land of freedom…
Okay, I think the question was to ask people why we would vote for a republican candidate depsite having a republican president for the last eight years. I would wage that your question was referring to the decision President Bush made to go to war after 9/11, among other bad decisions he has made over the years. That should have been clarified better when you proposed the question.