  
|
| |||||||
|
"Scam" ads the norm Trail Mix: Hillary haters spam cyberspace Gunning for the center Democrats make Hillary legit The blundering pundit Don Giuliani Campaign video: |
What's at stake in the 2000 elections? | page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
What's at stake in the 2000 election? Three big things: the future of Social Security, the future of education reform and (perhaps) the future of marriage. The window of opportunity to strengthen and rebuild a marriage culture is fairly small. Already sophisticated intellectual, judicial and political coalitions are attempting to reduce marriage from a basic social institution to an individual consumer good. No society can survive if what children need (such as fathers who live with them) becomes merely one of a list of adult lifestyle options. The next president can reaffirm the key role of marriage in this culture, creating a marriage-friendly tax code and welfare system, and reconfiguring federally funded teen pregnancy and contraceptive programs so they emphasize to young people the importance of postponing babies until marriage.
First, the decline of marriage as the normal, usual and generally reliable way to raise children. Second, the unfunded Social Security obligations that threaten the well-being of seniors and the future ability of government to meet its other obligations. I would be most saddened by the election of Hillary Clinton, which would reward some of the sleaziest political and personal behavior of the last hundred years; plus we'd have six more years of watching the dysfunctional duo and personally, I've had enough, haven't you?. The happiest? Elections don't make me that happy. My model for the next president is Ronald Reagan. He didn't just want to be president; he knew why, and he accepted compromises that moved him toward his goals. The best of the top contenders would mix George W. Bush's joie de vivre, Bill Bradley's gravitas, Gary Bauer's new abortion rhetoric and Alan Keyes' charisma. - - - - - - - - - - - - The 2000 election will be extraordinarily decisive. The very character of our institutions of government is at stake. Control of the White House and Congress are both in play. Furthermore, the next occupant of the White House will determine the character of the Supreme Court for at least the next decade. The most important thing the next president can do is restore the dignity and proper role of his office, and by doing so, renew the American people's trust in them. The greatest policy challenge America will face in the next decade is making certain increasingly rapid technological changes and increases in government power do not threaten Constitutional rights and public safety. For example, Constitutional rights must not be threatened by privacy-eroding technologies, the spread of weapons of mass destruction must be checked and we must not allow advances in genetic engineering or evolving diseases to threaten public health. I would be most thrilled to see Steve Forbes in the White House and a solid Republican majority in the House of Representatives. I would be most distressed to see Al Gore in the White House and a Democrat majority in the House. However, the worst result of all would be disappointingly low voter turnout and interest. My model for the next president is George Washington. A man of unquestioned integrity, vision, bold leadership and deepest respect for public service. - - - - - - - - - - - - Matthew Hale, founder of the white supremacist World Church of the Creator One thing the next president can do to make the most difference is to publicly repudiate American support for the state of Israel. This would end the hatred many around the world have for the United States -- hatred which often manifests itself in terrorism against American citizens. It is time that the United States reclaim the friendship of the Arab world by ending its economic and military support for Israel. The most pressing problem looming in the next decade is the racial problem. The simple fact of the matter is that the much lauded "diversity" people talk about is actually a severe weakness -- the more diversity there is in America, the more disunity there is, and the more disunity there is, the more likely there will be instability and violence in the country. Unless we wish to go the route of Yugoslavia or the old Soviet Union, the politicians in Washington had best enact laws designed to preserve white majority status in America. Otherwise, this century will witness the country breaking apart into ethnic enclaves. I want the candidates to talk about why they are selling out the future of white Americans. My hero is President Andrew Jackson, who told the bankers they could go right straight to hell when they tried to tell him "how things were done" in Washington. As a consequence, he is the only president who ever reduced the national debt to zero. - - - - - - - - - - - - Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor and author of "The Advocate's Devil" The separation of church and state is at stake in the 2000 elections. This is the first election that could endanger the Jeffersonian principle we're founded on and turn us into a European-style country where religion is part of the government. The main candidates act as if they're running for bishop rather than president. The president is not the defender of the faith, he's the defender of the Constitution. The one thing the next president should do is make it clear that religion is a private matter. People are terrified of expressing religious skepticism. People who don't belong to mainline Christianity are in danger of being converted into second class citizens. This is becoming a Protestant election, where the candidates seem to be debating who's the better Protestant. Implicit in that conversation is a kind of racism. To proclaim you're Protestant is to proclaim you're not Italian or Catholic or anything not Protestant. If the only people talking about government are mainstream Protestants, then anybody not Protestant can participate in the discussion. This is divisive. Only Buchanan's election would make me angry. He's a throwback to European fascism. Bush isn't qualified to be our accountant let alone president. The model for me is FDR. He brought people together. He kept us from going too far to the left or the right. - - - - - - - - - - - - Linda Chavez, director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1983-'85) What's at stake domestically is whether we let individuals manage the wealth of this country or have the government manage it for them. Will we cut taxes or let the government keep spending? This is important to the continued growth of the country. Do we go forward or back to a welfare state? What's at stake internationally is America's role in the world. Clinton squandered our power by using it promiscuously and not having a clearly defined set of guidelines. Our military is degraded while our commitments have increased. The looming question is how do we use our power and what are the parameters of involvement? Our biggest problem doesn't lend itself easily to a political solution -- the assault on the family brought on by the high divorce rate and out-of-wedlock births. We have to work that out culturally, not politically. I'd be angriest at the election of Hillary Clinton because I just want both of them to go home to Arkansas. They're two of the most annoying people in my political memory. The model for the next president should be Ronald Reagan because he wisely spent his political capital on just a few things -- a return of our military power to its previous might, a cut in taxes and a reduction of the size of government. If I could mold the next president from the current crop of candidates I'd take Bush's policies and sensibilities, Bradley's wit, McCain's courage and nothing, not a damn thing, from Gore.
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
More news on 
Next page |