Letter to the Editor
Test the candidate
Published Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!April 5, 2008
To the editor:
I am thankful that we have a “Letters to the Editor” column. We are individualistic Alaskans; otherwise, we wouldn’t be in this fine state. However, we can say what is on our minds freely, without fear of reprisals, unlike inhabitants of certain other countries that discourage freedom of expression.
I would encourage people to keep this thought foremost in their minds during this coming election year and elect someone who encourages less government and more trust in the people. I propose a contest to create a test that a candidate would have to pass in order to be president. What would it look like?
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
What would it look like? Thousands and thousands of questions. Anything less would be too simplistic.
Yes, far too many people base their voting decision on a single or, at best, a few issues. Fortunately, others take a serious look at each candidate's potential as a leader.
This proposal is really irrelevant ... such a test already exists and each candidate answers the questions as best they can during the campaign. Then, the voters grade their answers by going to the polls.
i say the president is elected now a days by the national media. i say boycott the upcoming presidential elections. none of the above candidates are acceptable.
Alaska's vote is so inconsequential in national elections that we could all boycott them and it would make no difference whatsoever. We all know that they announce the new president before our polls close anyhow. To top it off, I won't vote for a Republican for president, but, as far as I know, Alaska as a State has never voted anything but Republican.
I often question why I even bother to go to the poles at all.
Sad, but true.
Well I submit that, if you dont align yourself with the nation of islam and oprah, then a GOP candidate might be your best bet.
Really, hmmm...
I didn't know that we had any Islamic folks in the race this year.
Or, are you implying that since Obama is black that he must be one of those damned terrorist supporting jihadist?
newsreader,
I'll let 'Runnynoze' answer for himself regarding what he thinks but I will tell you that Barrack Obama has openly advocated "talking to President Ahmadinajab of Iran". This is dangerous because Iran in general and Admadinajab in particular are ardent and deeply committed to converting the rest of the world to the Muslim Faith. The Quaran openly advocates lies and deceit when dealing with non-muslims as long as it advances their agenda of 'Converting the World' to Islam.
I do not believe Barrack Obama is Muslim but I do believe he is incredibly naive (as supported by the fact that he could sit in a pew in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Church most sundays for 20 years and "never heard" any of the foul and racist rantings of his Friend and Mentor? I almost hope he does get elected just so I can bite my tongue for the first few months and then have the right to say, "I told you so!" when he raises taxes and drives the economy of this nation even further into the toilet than it already is. I think he is imcredibly dangerous as a prospective Chief Executive for the United States. This is my opinion of course.
Doug ---
Aren't the Christians Fundies in our nation deeply committed to converting the rest of the world to the Christian faith (like they did to all of the American Natives)?
Don't we regularly engage in wars to spread our personal brand of "Democracy" & "Freedom" around the world?
In general, I would think that speaking with a leader from a foreign nation should be construed as a GOOD thing, don't you?
And, he may be naive, but, in my opinion, naive may just be better than the old crusty politicians we have as alternatives. In fact, Obama's youth is one of the greatest attractors for me.
The only problem with the "test" idea and the reason people can only vote for the candidate that shares their views on a few issues is because we are living in a pseudo-democracy. It's rediculous that a few wealthy individuals decide who the United States can vote for. We get to chose between 2 individuals that big government choses...OUTRAGEOUS!! John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mrs. Bill Clinton are all equal in my eyes. It's a lose, lose, lose situation.
Although I'm not a practicing Christian, it seems to me that there is a huge difference between preaching the gospel and death to infidels.
Also, isn't it just as true that the Alaskan electoral votes decided the 2000 election as did the fiasco in Florida? 3 electoral votes was all it would have taken to change the election result. But then, what fun could Dems have, if they couldn't still whine about hanging chads. So, I'm gonna keep voting. I agree, newsreader, maybe you shouldn't bother going to the poles (even though I know already that you are an independent).
As for testing the candidates, that's what the whole process is. Maybe, instead, we should have a test for the voters. Something on the line of "Do you contribute to society, or are you a parasite?". This is not directed at anybody in particular, in case anyone is insulted.
Newsreader, I was tempted not to vote at all in this year's presidential election but I never contemplated staying home on election day -- too many down-ballot races that, when you think about it, are really more important that the presidential race.
In any event, this year I'm looking for a minor-party candidate who most closely fits my views. That way I can contribute to a result that might help explain to "my" party why its candidate lost, or didn't win as handily as he should have.
I think if all of us who are disillusioned with this year's crop of nominees did the same, it might be more useful than letting those who actually *want* one of these losers, make the decision without our input.
Unfortunately newsreader, you hit the nail on the head. Conservatives are whipping their base into a frenzy over such important issues as Obama’s middle name, where he attended church as a child and his minister’s views on our country. By the way, I didn’t think it was so controversial to call on God to damn America for its prejudice. I thought we were all sort of saddened and ashamed of our track record in that respect.
What flavor is that Kool Aid dribbling down your chin?
We drug test pilots, bus drivers...even clerks at Home Depot. Why, then, don't we drug test politicians? After all, if we had been doing this in 2000, Bush would have been kept off the ballot and sent to the Betty Ford recovery center, which is where he belongs.
Wow Glacierles your arguments are always so pithy and clever. Do you write your own material?
At first, after reading your national condemnation, which included those of us who disagree with you regardless of your insistance that you speak for all of us, all I could feel was fury at your juvenile stupidity. However, not wanting to get into name calling, I decided against calling you a blame America first, Democratic party hack wannabe, race baiting, close minded fool. I can see now that I was mistaken when I hesitated.
Which country do you believe we would be better served to emulate their race relations? Do you think that we have made any strides in race relations in the last 50 years? Will every generation until kingdom come be damned by our historic national sin, i.e. slavery? Where do the ever increasing numbers of mixed blood people fit in? Are they guilty of being white, or discriminated against by color? Can we only survive by voting for socialists, i.e. Obama or Clinton?
Believe it or not, the history of this nation did not begin the day that you were born (unless you are much older than I imagine).
Was J. Wright correct in his assessment of "America's chickens coming home to roost" on 9-11?
Not only do I write my own material, but unlike you, I think for myself.
newsreader,
“Aren't the Christians Fundies in our nation deeply committed to converting the rest of the world to the Christian faith…?”
Short answer is “Yes and No” – Yes, Christians are committed to “Spreading the Good News” to the rest of the world but No, Christians are not doing so, “At the point of a sword.” You and all others in the United States who do not wish to be Christian are perfectly within your rights to say, “No.” Further, it is not a criminal act anywhere in the United States or Western Europe to Convert from Christianity to Islam but is a Criminal Act to Convert from Islam to any other religion in any Muslim Nations (in fact, it is a Capitol Offense).
“Don't we regularly engage in wars to spread our personal brand of ‘Democracy’ & ‘Freedom’ around the world?”
Answer again is “Yes and No” – Yes, we have been involved in a couple of instances of “Nation Building” which I’m not altogether sure we should have been involved in however, No, we are not in the business of “Converting the Heathen” in those countries. American soldiers who are Christian are ordered to “keep their religion to themselves” in Muslim Nations.
“In general, I would think that speaking with a leader from a foreign nation should be construed as a GOOD thing, don't you?”
No, I don’t. We in the United States were attacked on September 11, 2001. Yes, we have supported Israel for most of the past 50 years. Israel has had to fight at least four or five wars over the past half decade simply for the right to exist. In each case, they fought against overwhelming odds against Arab/Muslim Nations who avowed goal was to “drive Israel into the sea”. Those nations still want war. I am in favor of giving it to them in quantity until they beg us to stop.
Obama's youth is one of the greatest attractions for many across the United States but his Ignorance of Governance, Statecraft, and Foreign Policy are frightening to the rest of us.
Newsreader,
One more thing - Before you tell me that the Unite States bombed “innocent” people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, that’s a lie! Japan attacked the United States on December 7th 1941 and then mistreated American and Allied prisoners of war all across the Pacific. After the Unprovoked Attack on Pearl Harbor; the mood of the people of the United States was not prepared to allow the Japanese anything but Unconditional Surrender. And before you tell me that we, the United States had provoked the Empire of Japan, let me reiterate, yes it was unprovoked because the United States had levied an embargo against Japan for Invading China. All the Japanese had to do was withdraw from China; they chose instead, to sink our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and to expand their Far East "Co-Prosperity Sphere" so they could control the natural resources of all of Asia.
By 1945, the The Japanese Empire was losing the war across the Pacific and was preparing to “resist” the American Forces by instructing women and children in the use sharpened bamboo poles as lances. Japan did attack the United States without provocation and without warning. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – as horrible as it was – saved the American Army from as many as a million more casualties.
If we had had a million casualties inflicted on the American Forces, the casualties we would have inflicted on the Japanese in turn would have far outstripped the numbers suffered – both killed and wounded – in the two cities we destroyed by the A-Bomb.
Oops, "Israel has had to fight at least four or five wars over the past half decade" should have read half century...
Sorry
Glacierless
I don’t say this in jest I mean it. If you are this angry over my post you might want to talk to a mental health professional. It is sad that you think its okay to write the things you wrote. I can only assume a product of your upbringing. I was ready to debate this issue with you but after that post I really can’t. I think people on the right in this country have been sold a bill of goods and that bothers me. You on the other hand see people with differing opinions as enemies that hate this country. I don’t believe a division that wide can be bridged.
Doug ---
I wonder if you've ever talked to a Palestinian - I have... You see, their NATION was taken from them after WWII and it was given to the Jews. As far as the Muslims are concerned, a nation was forcibly taken from them by the Christians (with America at its head). Needless to say, they are a bit upset about that. I think you would be too.
Now, we are apparently taking more of their nations by force of arms. Not at the point of the sword, but with massive WMDs that we've decided (in our infinite Christian God given reason) no one else can have. How frickin' hypocritical is that?
If after WWII the "world" (mostly the Muslim world) had decided that Alaska really should belong to, say, the North Koreans, don't you think that you'd be fighting them? Don't you think that you'd want to "drive them into the sea" as well? Don't you think that you'd have a serious axe to grind with the Muslim world?
As far as not speaking with the leader of Iran, it seems to me that you are saying that because some extremely radical jihadists (from Saudi Arabia) attacked us on 9/11 that we should cut off relations with all nations of Islam and attack and destroy them all?
Wow! I thought I was bad lumping all of the Christians together with Falwell and Prevo. Seems to me that you are much much worse.
[BTW - I would never say that Japan was innocent or that dropping the bomb on them was not warranted. They, unlike the Muslims, actually invaded American soil and attacked military targets, something that we should NEVER EVER allow to happen.]
I should add, that all of your arguments about the muslims, along with this crusade that's endured for well over a thousand years, only deepens and strengthens my hatred for any fundamentalist religion. The jihadists are certainly the worst of the bunch right now, but the American baptists, "young world" folks, and others in our nation aren't a whole lot better really.
Don't believe they are just as bad???
Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.
--Pat Buchanan
"Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."
--Rev. Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, "Biblical Role of Civil Government" speech given 8/31/93 at Biblical Worldview and Christian Education Conference
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
--R. Furman, Baptist, of South Carolina
"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
--Gary Potter, president of Catholics for Christian Political Action
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992
"Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together"
[Pat Robertson, ADL report on Religious Right, page 131]
scrabble---
I'm so sorry if I hurt your feelings. I can tell how important feelings are to you. But, in my defense, I think that you mistook my frustration with your remarks for anger. I should be more level headed, like yourself for instance.
I dont think that you hate this country. I didn't say that. I think that you're willing to blame this country for any instance. And it is a free country, you are allowed to do that. You're even allowed to say God Damn America. It frustrates some of us, but you know that.
Anyhow, gentle, level headed, open minded scrabble, there's still a couple of questions about race on the previous post. If you can bring yourself down to my neanderthal right wing level, maybe you'd try to answer them.
newsreader,
No, I’ve not talked to a Palestinian – nor do I particularly wish to. Most of them were (in 1948) recent immigrants from other Arab Nations so I reject the notion that “their NATION was taken from them after WWII”. I also reject the notion that the Spaniards took Spain away from the Moors who conquered that nation in the middle ages so that, somehow, the Moors have a right to reclaim Spain (this per the rantings of Osama Bin Laden). The newly minted United Nations voted to declare Israel a nation in 1948; perhaps it because of the guilt much of the world felt after standing idly by during World War II and while the Nazis exterminated 6 million of them. Perhaps you don’t believe that either – sorry but I know better (I’ve seen the photographic record in the United States Still Photo Library).
“Now, we are apparently taking more of their nations by force of arms…” What are you talking about? We are trying to stabilize Iraq into a nation of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims - not Christians - who do not feel that they have to be at war with the rest of the world (because the rest of the world is not Muslim). What other nations are we trying to conquer by force of arms? What WMDs are you referring to? If you’re talking about “smart” munitions (which are considered WMDs), then yes because I’d rather use something that allows our armed forces to strike targets with pin-point accuracy from 15,000 feet than have to resort to an improvised explosive device that takes out an entire city block near a shopping market.
“If after WWII the "world" (mostly the Muslim world) had decided that Alaska really should belong to, say, the North Koreans…” First, I’d want to know what possible claim the North Korean might have. The Russians sold it to us (and don’t have any right to reclaim it). The native population of Alaska might have some claim and they’ve pursued it through the court system (with some – albeit not complete