Issues Questionnaire

So hard to pick only one but since you only wanted one.... hmm....

7) The candidate who would be the better commander in chief

Hands down... I'm a fascist at heart I guess.... or whatever...

This one ought to be featured.

That's the big question--how do you get featured?

There have been as you know non-dictatorial commanders in chief. 

wow...I'm going to have to go with total self-interest and say #7. 

 

Gotta go with # 7 myself
The name says it all.

Tough call for me, but I'd also have to go with 7. Maybe 2 right behind that...

I'd have to say 8 - the right mix of colonies and allies can make sure you get everything you want.

#7

As you worded these, #8 comes out on top. In the long run, we will wish that we had excellent foreign policy more than we will wish for anything else here, even #7. The terrorists have more to fear from us, if we excel in diplomancy than if we excel in any striclty military arena.

However, you leave out a lot.

You ruin the economic policy choice by turning it into such a short term concern:

9) Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the present economy

Keep in mind that that the goal of terrorists is to bring down the American economy, and our long term strength depends on economic decisions. That is different from judging presidents on rises and dips, the timing of which reflect more than a small element of luck.

You also leave out environmental policy. In the long run, we are going to wish that our presidents had taken a wise course between those that see the environment only in terms of sentimentality, and those that see only short term economic gain. What I wouldn't give for a president wise enough to see the environmental stakes in terms of the future of humanity and of the country.

7.

i have to go with  #7 too.

assuming this is representative of the electorate, i guess we're looking at a kerry landslide. 

The terrorists have more to fear from us, if we excel in diplomancy than if we excel in any striclty military arena.

What is it about our diplomacy that terrorists should fear? I think it is important for us to encourage other countries to detain terrorists and freeze assets within their borders. I don't think this is a campaign issue though as both candidates favor this and Bush has a strong record of encouraging this.

Kerry landslide? Bush is polling better than Kerry in the war on terror according to these polls.

What is it about our diplomacy that terrorists should fear? I think it is important for us to encourage other countries to detain terrorists and freeze assets within their borders.

You have partly but not completely answered your own question.

We are the mightiest country in the world, but we have nowhere near the necessary power to prevent terrorism without the cooperation of the international community. Further, for those who have, stability is clearly a plus. Stability is primarily a fucntion of diplomacy.

I don't think this is a campaign issue though as both candidates favor this and Bush has a strong record of encouraging this.

I think I would choose Kerry over Bush in this area.

Even within your narrowed definition of the goal, I look at Afghanistan and see that the current administration has not done so well at causing terrorists to be detained.

However, for me the larger issue is more important. Both men will use both military and diplomatic means to try to forward the interests of the country, but I predict that Bush will sacrifice significant diplomacy to make military gains, and Kerry would do the reverse. For all the smoke put up by both sides, I see that as the central difference between the two. In the case of Bush, the record is pretty clear.

There is an argument to be made on both sides, but I believe that the military skew appeals more to the heart. (The SOBs embody evil, and I am going to stand up to it by kicking the snot out of any piece of evil I can lay my hands on. A dead man can't commit terrorist acts, and we'll be respected for our actions.)

I believe the diplomatic skew appeals more to rational thought. (The terrorists' actions were designed to draw America into an overreaction, which could then be used to strengthen the militant Muslim agenda in that part of the world. America can kill hundreds of terrorists, but if we are not careful, the hundreds of innocent victims can be turned into a powerful propaganda campaign against us, which then destabalizes the most pro-west governments in the Middle East, and creates thousands more willing terrorists.)

I prefer the second argument to the first, and I believe that Kerry puts more stock in it, so this pushes me towards Kerry.

None of the above. My big one would be economic policy, which include thinking about free trade, taxes, deficits, and major programs proposed by the candidates.

The terrorists' actions were designed to draw America into an overreaction

That's a rediculous argument. Do you really think the terrorists wanted us to overthrow the one government that was giving them sanctuary? Do you really think the terrorists want us to build a democracy in Iraq? Do you really think that terrorists are stronger now that we have destroyed their training camps? Are terrorists stronger now that we have captured most of Al Qaeda's senior leadership?

What specific improvement will Kerry make regarding diplomacy?

Probably number 8, for all the reasons listed by others.

I was sickened by our approach to the Iraq issue, I was sickened by the way Bush ignored the U.N., and I was sickened by all the French-bashing going on at the start of that war.

All the people who think America can continue to be the world's greatest super power by alienating every other nation on this Earth scare me.

"The better foreign policy offered "

I really think in the long run this will be ever increasingly important. 

alienating every other nation on this Earth

France, Germany, and Russia are not every other nation on this Earth.

France, Germany, and Russia are not every other nation on this Earth.

But 3 of the most influential nations in the world.  

You ruin the economic policy choice by turning it into such a short term concern:

Unfortunately, short term gain or loss has been the perception since Reagan turned corporate and government economics upside down.

That's a rediculous argument. Do you really think the terrorists wanted us to overthrow the one government that was giving them sanctuary? Do you really think the terrorists want us to build a democracy in Iraq?

If you call this ridiculous, then we are not going to find a lot of common ground, and I probably will have a tough time convincing you.

However, without offering these dirtbags any sympathy whatsoever, I invite you to think about their motivations. Do they believe that they can fly enough planes into enough buildings to make us surrender? Do they think that, by committing an array of atrocities, the U.S.can be convinced to say, "Woa, you guys are too much for us. We're outa here?"

The burning desire of Osama Bin Laden was and is to remove America and all "infidels" from the Middle East in general and the holy sites of his homeland, Saudi Arabia, in particular. And he is not stupid enough to think this can be accomplished directly. Thus, he means to spark a much larger rift, whereby those governments of the Middle East that accomodate the US face pressure and possibly overthrow from Muslim militants.

Did he want us to overthrow Iraq? I hate to be inflammatory here, but I suspect that, in his wildest dreams, he had no idea he would accomplish such a helpful outcome. Saddam Hussein, although about as horrible a man as you will find, was no friend of Osama Bin Laden or militant Muslims -- in fact, Iraq had a secular, albeit evil, government. To the Muslim world, our attacking Iraq for the wrong doing of Muslim militants, is insane, and the deaths of innocent people in the process (all horribly documented on Muslim TV) is Bin Laden's wet dream come true.

I don't say this as part of a "get Bush" agenda -- I say it as an American who loves his country and feels that we are getting outmanuevered. And I grind my teeth to watch it happen. The deaths of the 9/11 victims remain unavenged, and the agenda of those who perpetrated this act has been forwarded. If Bush would wise up about this, he would be welcome to my vote.

The terrorists were willing to purchase the advance of this agenda with their own lives, and they are getting what they paid for... which is hardly the way to discourage further terrorism.

None of the above. My big one would be economic policy, which include thinking about free trade, taxes, deficits, and major programs proposed by the candidates.

I have to go with vincible here. But lacking that option I would go with #7.

Saddam Hussein, although about as horrible a man as you will find, was no friend of Osama Bin Laden or militant Muslims

Which would explain why Saddam was training terrorists in his country.

Thus, he means to spark a much larger rift, whereby those governments of the Middle East that accomodate the US face pressure and possibly overthrow from Muslim militants.

Governments the US has overthrown since 9/11: 2
Governments Islamic militrants have overthrown since 9/11: 0
Also consider that Pakistan has gone from being a Taliban backer to a hunter of Al Qaeda.

Yep, we're losing.

Madine, I honestly wish you are right, but you are practicing self deceit.

I fervently pray that 5-10 years down the road it will turn out that I was wrong and you were right., but, in the meantime, I am going to go with #8.