Elecciones presidenciales -- 2008 Presidential elections

[Berodia]

Bueno, ya que el apartado política está un poco parado, voy intentar animarlo un poco.

¿Que os parecen los candidatos?

Aquí (en las colonias), solo hay ojos para Obama, aunque estos últimos días se habla mucho de Palin.

Pero me temo que la perspectiva estadounidense es muy distinta a la que existe en este lado del Atlántico.

Parece que McCain quiere romper con el legado de Bush. Acabar con la tortura y las cárceles secretas, porque el mismo fue torturado en Vietnam. ¿Es cierto o solo una estrategia electoral? ¿Y como encaja Palin en esto, cuando dice que la guerra de Iraq es un mandato divino?

¿Y que postura tienen frente a Rusia? ¿También están a favor de relanzar la guerra fría?

Saludos

--------------------------
trans. Art

Well, since the political section has been a little slow, I'll try to get it rolling a bit.

What you think of the [U.S. presidential] candidates?

Here (in the colonies), there are only eyes for [people are all rooting for] Obama, although in recent days there is much talk of Palin.

But I fear that the American perspective is very different from that which exists on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

It seems that McCain wants to break with the legacy of Bush. Ending torture and secret prisons, because he himself was tortured in Vietnam. Is that true or just an electoral strategy? And how does Palin fit in, given that she has said that the war in Iraq is a divine mandate?

And what stance do they have towards Russia? Are they also in favor of relaunching the Cold War?

Best wishes

[Art]

Berodia asks some interesting questions.

For those who haven't heard about Palin's comments on the Iraq war, you can read them or watch the video here.

------------------

Berodia plantea algunas preguntas interesantes.

Para aquellos que no han oído del discurso de Palin en que habla del mandato divino de los EEUU en la guerra de Irak, puedes leerlo o ver el vídeo aquí.

[Betty]

Yes, you have posed interesting questions. I am curious whether Spaniards/Asturians are able to view our Democratic and Republican Conventions via television or other means?

I was brought up by my parents that it is better to keep religion and politics to oneself... and here we have Sarah Palin who is commanding attention on both subjects! I am sure we all have opinions, some of us may share those opinions and some may not. But, here is one perspective from the UK:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 647092.ece

Betty

[Xose]

God help us if the Republicans get four more years to screw things up. McCain sold out any "maverick" ideas he had long ago. He essentially wants to keep up the same policies as Bush, which are resulting in the systematic destruction of the middle class and federal government.

[Sonia Garcia Mandzok]

Here are twelve reasons to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in November.

Twelve reasons why I'm voting Republican in November:

1. I don't want my hard-earned tax dollars spent on those in need, like seniors, the homeless, or people without health care. Not when we have wars to fight and people to convert. Those tanks and body bags are expensive, you know.

2. I think we should give up our freedom of speech by passing laws like "The Patriot Act." Every real American should be willing to have their phones tapped as part of their patriotic duty to their "Fatherland."

3. I believe we should stay in Iraq until every last Muslim accepts our democratic way of life, even if it takes 100 years. You tell them, Mr. McCain!

4. I believe our bottom-line profits are more important than a few meaningless creatures. If they were important to God, He would have given them guns like us. They don't serve any real purpose anyway.

5. I agree that we should drill for oil offshore and in Alaska. If the fish and wildlife don't like it, we can move them to reservations.

6. Our government has a right to pass anti-abortion laws. Women should understand that the Republicans know what is best for their bodies. It's not like we need to limit our population. But if we did, the Republicans have a great plan. It's called war! So ladies, do your duty and have your babies. We will need them for our future wars.

7. I believe no death row inmate has a right to appeal. (Where is that in our Constitution anyway?) If it's good enough for Mr. Bush and Texas, then it's good enough for me.

8 No business should be forced to give any benefits to its workers no matter how much it makes off them. (Let them eat cake!)

9. The Republicans are the only ones that should be allowed to interpret our Constitution because, after all, Lincoln was a Republican.

10. I believe every "American" should own a few guns because if Iraq ever invades us, our nuclear missiles may not be enough to stop them.

11. The Republicans will stop those gay people from making our children gay.

12. And finally, I am voting Republican in November because in the past month gas dropped to under $4 per gallon.

Vote Republican in November and keep the status quo! God help us all, er, ah, I mean God Bless America!

I am now taking my sarcastic tongue out of my cheek.

[Ron Gonzalez]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU

Why I'm voting Republican

[Art]

I enjoy a witty take on things. Both the video and the 12 reasons piece highlight the issues as seen from a Democratic perspective. Of course, they're both partisan and risk distorting the other side's positions.

I do wonder, however, if Sarah Palin's views are so far to the Right that these pieces don't distort her views. (Are they in fact accurate?) I think that's a question worth discussing here.

Personality and personal story are big factors in this election. To some degree Palin has trumped Obama with her story, charisma, and energy.

[Art: I've added this next paragraph.]
Plus, she's seen as beng an outsider to Washington politics and Americans seem to dislike anyone who is viewed as an insider. This perception is highly subjective and probably not the best criterion when choosing a national leader.

Or maybe we're just fickle and are happy to have a new, interesting face in the race. Interest inpersonal qualities has a tendency to fade like a honeymoon's glow, so it'll be interesting to watch how the campaign goes.


I encourage members to remember that we are not all of one mind. We should aim for a respectful, honest and thoughtful discussion. That's difficult when feelings are high.

What is the purpose of this discussion? It is highly unlikely that any of us are going to convince others that our way of thinking is better. So don't bother to try to convince anyone of anything. It's a waste of energy.

What I find helpful is to hear what you -- you personally -- are thinking about. I learn from your personal ruminations and doubts, your concerns and perspectives. I don't find party-line thinking very illuminating or helpful. We already know that stuff and most of us don't trust it!

Most of all: Don't write when you're angry or hot under the collar. Revise your message if you have any doubts about it.

And let me know if I mess up!

------------------------------------

Me encanta un perspectiva ingenioso sobre esas temas. Tanto el vídeo como la pieza sobre las 12 razones hincapié en los problemas desde una perspectiva demócrata. Por supuesto, ambos son partidistas y arriesgan distorsión las posiciones del otro lado.

Me pregunto, sin embargo, si las opiniones de Sarah Palin son tanto de la derecha que estas piezas no distorsionen sus opiniones. (¿Son en realidad exacta?) Creo que eso es una cuestión que vale la pena discutir aquí.

La personalidad y la historia personal son grandes factores en esta elección. En cierta medida Palin ha ganado una ventaja sobre Obama con su historia, carisma y la energía.

[Art: He agregado este párrafo siguiente.]
Además, se vea a ella como un afuerano (alguien que no ha participado en la política en Washington). A muchos estadounidenses no les gusta a nadie que se consideran a pertenecer al gobierno. Esta percepción es muy subjetiva y probablemente no la mejor criterio para escoger un líder nacional.

¿O quizás estamos caprichosos y somos felices de tener una nueva y interesante cara en la carrera. El interés en las cualidades personales tiende a desaparecer como el resplandor de una luna de miel, por lo que será interesante ver cómo va la campaña.


Os animo a los miembros a recordar que no estamos todos de una cuenta. Debemos aspirar a un respetuoso, honesto y pensativo debate. Eso es difícil cuando los sentimientos son elevados.

¿Cuál es el propósito de este discusión? Es muy poco probable que cualquiera de nosotros convenceremos a otros de que nuestra forma de pensar es mejor. Por lo tanto, no te moleste en tratar de convencer a nadie de nada. Es un derroche de energía.

Lo que me parece útil es escuchar lo que - tú personalmente - estás pensando. Aprender de tus rumias personales y dudas, tus inquietudes y perspectivas. No encuentro muy esclarecedor o útil las líneas del partidos. Ya sabemos estas cosas y la mayoría de nosotros no las confiamos!

Sobre todo: No escribas cuando estás enojado o te sulfuras. Revisar tu mensaje si tienes cualquier duda que muestra respeto.

¡Y dime si falto en algo!

[Art]

... Aquí (en las colonias), solo hay ojos para Obama, aunque estos últimos días se habla mucho de Palin.

Pero me temo que la perspectiva estadounidense es muy distinta a la que existe en este lado del Atlántico. ...

Es interesante esa hecho de que hay un tanto apoyo para Obama. ¿Por qué? ¿Cuáles son las diferencias básicas entre McCain y Obama que se ven allí?


Creo que tienes razón, Berodia, que tenemos una perspectiva diferente aquí. Esto puede ser debido a que nuestras historias políticas han sido distintas. Por ejemplo, nuestra Guerra Civil terminó hace casi 150 años. Todavía vive en la mente de algunos, pero no creo que sea verdad para la mayoría de los estadounidenses. Cuando visito Asturias, tengo la sensación de que los alineamientos políticos de la Guerra Civil española (y sus secuelas y el preludio) siguen intactos. Eso tiene sentido, dado que todavía vive tanta gente que sufrió este período miserable. Aquí las alineaciones de la época de nuestra Guerra Civil han cambiado hace bastante tiempo.

Otra diferencia posible es que nuestros partidos son alianzas de grupos con objetivos bastante diferentes. (Tal vez esas coaliciones de grupos diversos ocurren en la política por todo el mundo. No sé.) Históricamente, el Partido Demócrata ha incluido progresistas sociales y económicas, agricultores, minorías religiosas y étnicas (especialmente los africanos-americanos), sindicalistas, trabajadores, los pobres, los que quieren limitar los excesos del capitalismo y las grandes empresas, ecologistas, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic ... ed_States)

El Partido Republicano ha tendido a incluir conservadores sociales y económicos, libertarios, propietarios de negocios, y los con mucha interés en la defensa nacional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican ... ed_States)

La combinación de todos estos diferentes intereses en una de las partes puede hacer difícil para unirlas por un núcleo de creencias comunes, y no hay ningún requisito de que cualquier político se adhieran a la plataforma de su partido. Cada político es libre de votar como lo desea. Es distinta en España, ¿no? ¿Es verdad que todos los miembros de un partido tienen que votar con su partido? La libertad que tienen los políticos estadounidense (la independencia del voto) diluye el impacto de las partidos y hace más difícil determinar cuál son las creencias fundamentales de los partidos.

Además, a veces me pregunto si los ideales básicos de nuestros partidos políticos son menos divergentes en comparación con las de los partidos políticos españoles. (Oyendo a un candidato como Sarah Palin, me pone en duda este supuesto.)

Es bastante común que los estadounidenses cambian la afiliación del partido o votan por otra partido, sobre todo a medida que disgustado con la actuación de una de las partes. De hecho, en las últimas décadas estas tradicionales agrupaciones han pasado algunos. He sido sorprendido por el número de obreros y clase media que se sienten mejor representados por el Partido Republicano. Supongo que la principal atracción para ellos es el conservadurismo social.

En los últimos años, me parece que las posiciones centrales adoptadas por los Demócratas han sido principalmente para apoyar los derechos civiles (estoy pensando en las cosas garantizados en la Carta de Derechos) y los intereses de los minorías y la clase media. Son más fuertes en el apoyo a las cuestiones ambientales y parece algo más favorable a la asistencia de los ciudadanos: educación, asistencia sanitaria, y asistencia a los jubilados.

Republicanos, me parece, han tendido a querer menos injerencia gubernamental en nuestras vidas y impuestos reducidos. (Preocupaciones que se refiere a los intereses de los empresarios y los ricos). También se toman posiciones fuertes para la seguridad nacional y para la regulación de las costumbres sociales (contra el matrimonio entre homosexuales, el aborto, la libertad de expresión cuando se trata de ideas inquietantes, etc.) Son por lo general en contra de cualquier control de armas.

Mi lista de posiciones sobre los demócratas es más corta porque no creo que tengan tantas posiciones para que realmente desean luchar (o tal vez en que se coinciden).

La realidad, sin embargo, es diferente de la plataformas declaradas. Los políticos de ambas partes han hecho mucho más para los súper-ricos que para el ciudadano medio. Probablemente la política funciona así en todo el mundo: los donantes más grandes reciben los favores más grandes. Por eso, apoyo en la financiación pública de las elecciones.

Más luego....

----------------------------------------

[trans. Art] ... Here (in the colonies), there are only eyes for [people are all rooting for] Obama, although in recent days there is much talk of Palin.

But I fear that the American perspective is very different from that which exists on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. ...

It's interesting that there is such widespread support for Obama. Why is that? What do you all see as the basic difference between McCain and Obama?


I think you're right, Berodia, that we have a different perspective over here. That may be because our political histories have been different. For example, our Civil War was nearly 150 years ago. It still lives on in the minds of some, but I don't think that's true for most of Americans. When I visit Asturias, I sense that the political alignments of the Spanish Civil War (and its prelude and aftermath) are still intact. That makes sense, given the fact that so many who experienced that miserable period are still alive. Here those alignments of our Civil War era have shifted since that time.

Another possible difference is that each of our parties is a alliance of interest groups with somewhat different goals. (Perhaps the coalition of diverse groups occurs in true for all politics everywhere. I don't know.) Historically, the Democratic Party has included social and economic progressives, farmers, religious and ethnic minorities (especially African-Americans), union workers, laborers, the poor, those who want to limit the excesses of capitalism and big business, environmentalists, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic ... ed_States)

The Republican Party has tended to include social and economic conservatives, libertarians, business owners, and those who are very concerned about national defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican ... ed_States)

Combining all of these different interests into one party may make it difficult to nail down the core beliefs of the party, and there is no requirement that any politician adhere to a party platform. Each politician is free to vote as they choose to. Isn't that different in Spain? Doesn't every party member have to vote with their party? The freedom that American politicians have (to vote independently) dilutes the impact of the parties and makes it harder to determine where the parties stand on issues.

Also, I wonder sometimes if the core ideals of our political parties are less divergent compared to those of the Spanish political parties. (Hearing a candidate like Sarah Palin speak makes me question this assumption.)

It's fairly common for Americans to switch parties or vote for another party, especially as they get disgusted with the performance of one party. In fact, in recent decades these traditional groupings have shifted some. I've been amazed by the number of laborers and middle class who feel better represented by the Republican Party. I assume that the primary attraction for them is the social conservatism.

In recent years, my sense is that the core positions taken by Democrats have primarily supported civil rights (I'm thinking of the things guaranteed in the Bill of Rights) and the interests of the lower and middle classes. They are stronger in supporting environmental issues and seem somewhat more supportive of good education, health care, and retirement assistance for citizens.

Republicans, as I see things, have tended to stand for less government interference in our lives and lower taxes (concerns I associate with the interests of business and the wealthy). They also take positions for strong national security and for regulation of social mores (against gay marriage, abortion, free speech when it involves disturbing ideas, etc.). They are generally against any forum of gun control.

My list of positions of the Democrats is shorter because I don't think they have as many positions that they're really willing to fight for. (Or maybe that they agree on.)

Reality, however, is different from the stated platforms. Politicians of both parties have done a lot more for the super rich than the average person. That's probably just the way politics works: bigger donors get bigger favors. That's why I support publicly financed elections.

More later....

[Barbara Alonso Novellino]

Well I guess you could say the American People have spoken. Its a very sad commentary to the Americn People who voted for this unknown...who came out of nowhere. The deck was stacked against Senator McCain...especially with the Media and all the money Obama was able to raise. Also the October surprise...The Economy.

I hope he can keep us safe as we have been.
I hope he won't take us out if Iraq too soon. Because due to the surge we WON
I hope he doesn't scale down our Military.
I hope he still supports Israel who are in a very dangerous place.
I hope he doesn't associate with those who are so very questionable.
I hope he doesn't go too far to the left, but stays somewhere in the middle.
I hope he listens to the Republicans and Moderates in the Senate and House and is reasonable.
I hope he knows how to handle the economic condition we find ourselves in.
I hope if our enemies come after us...he will act to protect us.

So I guess you can say thats that.

Barbara

[Villamil]

My impression is that Obama is not going to be much more different than his opponent would be. My perception is that both candidates have a similar profile at least on the most important matters (the ideologies or political position are almost the same in the deepest, I think). Maybe Obama is less radical and vehement than McCain, which will be beneficial but the essence doesn't diverge. On the other hand, I have clear enough that he is a puppet of the financial elites (one of his greatest godfathers was Goldman Sachs, e.g).

Well, it's just one observation.

[Barbara Alonso Novellino]

OPINION
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
What must our enemies be thinking?
By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO



Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

AP
According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
Like

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.


Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

[Betty]

Regarding President Bush bashing: Hindsight is always 20/20... so there are a plethora of things he could have/should have done differently. When one is the President he/she takes the credit as well as the blame for what occurs on his watch. Not too much good happened. I voted for Mr. Bush, but could I have predicted how he would have handled some situations, I would not have.

Senator McCain did not have a prayer after the last 4 years of Republican President Bush. I prayed that he would be successful but the Obama machine was well planned and very, very effective. President-elect Obama is a superb organizer and a masterful orator.
His entire platform frightens me for our country. Do you know that one who is homeless can now use a park bench as an address for voting purposes?

Our economy is in dire straits, our young people cannot find employment, jobs are disappearing by the thousands. I do not find solace in Mr. Obama's proposed solutions. And, the greatest concern now is that he has full control with total Democratic control of Congress. How far left will he go... we will see.

So now I pray for our President-Elect. I pray that our great country will be in a better place when we begin this election routine again in 2012. I pray that my concerns today will turn out to be unfounded. I pray that I will be able to say I was wrong.... God Bless America!

[Bob]

I'm a little confused. If homeless persons do indeed have the right to vote, what should they list as their address? Should they be disenfranchised because of their homeless condition? How should the matter be handled to guarantee rights while eliminating fraud? Maybe I'm just misreading your post.

I'm not trying to express and opinion here, but I am trying to understand yours.

[Betty]

All citizens indeed have rights and should not be disenfranchised; eliminating fraud is indeed the question and my concern.
Those who are not homeless must show driver's ID, utility bill with their address or other form of identification to vote. Purpose is to reduce fraud. Somehow listing a park bench on the other side of this scale looks quite imbalanced to me. I do not have a solution.
Betty

[Bob]

One of my students from Mexico tells me that the system there involves a voter ID card. You need the card to vote, it is punched to show that you have voted in that election, and your thumb is marked with a dye that lasts about a week to identify you as someone who has already voted.