Editor ponders presidency

By Francesca Lo Basso
Collegian Editor
April 18, 2007

Largely reminiscent of the 2003 circus of a California gubernatorial race when over 200 candidates were on the ballot, the list of potential nominees for the 2008 presidential election are equally getting out of hand. Everyone and his mother seem to be throwing his or (finally) her hat into the ring. Though this list is not comprehensive—I mean, really, who is actually going to vote for the Prohibition Party’s candidate in the 21st century?—it contains the individuals with the most notoriety and thus the most potential for becoming the 2008 presidential candidate for their respective parties.

For the Republicans, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani is possibly the most prominent candidate, but ironically the biggest issue surrounding his nomination is his potential to isolate moderate Republican voters. According to JoinRudy2008.com, his official campaign Web site, Giuliani cut taxes 23 times in New York in an attempt to enact his supply-side economic theory. This trickle-down theory is based on the idea that if you concentrate the money at the top (the way it has been for the past century), it will trickle down to the people at the bottom (the way it has not). This theory is waylaid by the simple logical point that if Reaganomics worked, there wouldn’t be any more impoverished people, like the nearly 40,000 homeless individuals in Giuliani’s New York City alone. Also on Giuliani’s Web site is mention of his ardent support of the war in Iraq, the second amendment and the war on terror because, as he states on his Web site, “Americans want peace,” ,which apparently logically concludes in perpetuating a controversial war.

Former Massachusetts GovernorMitt Romney, has also joined the parade. I think his platform can be summarily explained by the mere fact that one of the leading grassroots campaigns for his nomination is a group called Evangelicals for Mitt. On their Web site they support him for “pushing for an amendment to Massachusetts’ constitution to overturn the same-sex ‘marriages’ that courts have imposed,” for being a “convert to the pro-life position” and for “oppos[ing] cloning of human embryos for stem cell research—even though his wife has multiple sclerosis.” John J. Miller from the National Review actually said, “On either [gay marriage or stem cells], a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

But perhaps most bizarre is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the third most prominent potential candidates, and his vehement support of the war in Iraq. A video of his advocacy for more troops and the extended presence of Americans in Iraq is the first thing you see when entering his Web site. For a Vietnam veteran who was held as a POW for five-and-a-half-years in one of the most brutal prisons in Vietnam, his willingness to submit thousands of mostly young 20-somethings to the same grim landscape of war is beyond my grasp. Also on his platform is his passionate promise to overturn Roe v. Wade (the court case legalizing abortion) if elected —proof of his desire to protect “human dignity and the sanctity of life.”

The Democratic hopefuls fare only slightly better. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is the most talked about potential nominee being the first legitimate black candidate to enter the bid for the nomination. As stated on his official Web site, he was against the war from the beginning and has jumped on the bandwagon for the plan of a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. As far back as October 2002, Obama was attending antiwar rallies and opposing aggression against Iraq. Also on his platform is his resilience in “strengthening families and communities,” done by “promoting responsible fatherhood.” Obama introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act with another senator to try and “remove some of the government penalties on married families and support fathers already trying to do the right thing.”

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) name is another buzzword in Washington right now. Having the first legitimate black candidate and the first legitimate female candidate racing against each other for the presidential nomination is a contest never before anticipated. Although Clinton now supports a plan for the phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, she initially voted in support of the war in 2002 and, according to ABC News, she refuses to apologize for this action. Also, according to SeaCoastOnline, this past week she gave a speech at a high school in New Hampshire in which she said that Bush has shown “disregard and indifference to the problems of everyday Americans,” but exactly who specifically these “invisible” Americans are is never discussed further. Like Obama, she is pushing for the creation of a universal healthcare system and more efficient aid for returning war veterans. Among the news stories floating around in the media haze in regards to 2008 presidential hopefuls, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards’ name is prominent, though more is said about his wife than him. Edwards’ decision to stay in the race in the face of his wife’s cancer has stirred up mounds of controversy from conservative opponents who are trying to exploit his decision as a symbol of his lack of commitment to family and community values. Within this mess, Edwards’ positions on various critical political issues are lost. On his official campaign Web site, he unveiled what, in my opinion, is the most ardent and forceful proposal to end the war in Iraq. He said, “Bush is acting without authorization,” and for every day the war goes on “it is worse for Iraq, worse for our troops and worse for our country.” His plan to end the war is an immediate one: calling on Congress to use its funding power to block Bush’s escalation—and to stand firm in the face of a presidential veto—and also to begin withdrawing troops without delay. He wants the complete withdrawal of all combat troops to be achieved by 2008. Edwards’ stalwartness in bringing the troops home is refreshing.

It comes as no surprise that I detest the platform of every Republican nominee, but what might be hard for some to believe is that I don’t have any fuzzy feelings for the Democratic nominees either. On the face of it, Obama, Clinton and Edwards believe in reforming an inadequate public school system, a healthcare plan that leaves 46 million people without coverage and an inhumane and absurd war that has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties. But reform is not enough in a world that needs a revolution. The latest CBS News Poll shows that only 21 percent of respondents want to increase troops in Iraq and yet Cheney told CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday that he believed most “would prefer to have us win.” Where is the Eugene McCarthy of 2008? Someone who is willing to stand up and say point blank, with none of the politically correct and thus meaningfully sanitary jargon of Washington bureaucrats, that war is hateful, corrupt, inhuman and incontrovertibly wrong.

lobassof1@lasalle.edu