The Back Alley Archives

The recent thread on McCain and Obama got me thinking. One person wrote that if people voted on the issues, then everyone would vote Democrat. Needless to say, I disagree - an issue to one person is a non-issue to others, and people who agree on the issues often have disagreements on solutions.

Anyway, what are your top three issues? Feel free to expand, but I'm going to keep mine simple, and in no particular order:

1. The Global War on Terror (TM): Which candidate is going to recognize and defeat the enemy?

2. The Second Amendment: Thankfully, it looks like the Supreme Court is finally giving the Constitution's red-headed stepchild a closer look, but I fear that the upcoming decision will open up a fresh can of worms. This is one of my core issues that I use to judge a candidate. Do they trust the people enough to allow them arms?

3. The Economy: Who's gonna put mo' money in my pocket?

1) Preserving personal freedoms

2) States rights

3) Smaller government

the economy (keeping the nation afloat by reducing careless spending, but also levying taxes to pay for our amenities)

education (we have excellent universities, people come here from around the world to attend them, but we don't have strong enough primary schooling to fill our graduate schools and are in dire need of students in the math and sciences at a young age)

national security (i'm all for limiting immigration and profiling, you don't like it, stop bombing crap; however, we need diplomacy too, globalization is here to stay)



*note: to me, abortion shouldn't be a political issue, but because it's made one, i would rather pro-choice candidates, simply because it shouldn't be the government dictating what should be done.

1. Iraq
2. Teh Economy
3. Restoring the Constitution--you know, habeas corpus and all that jazz

1. The Global War on Terror (TM): Which candidate is going to recognize and defeat the enemy?

I have some thoughts that I will post but this comment caught my eye. Does anyone really think we can ever defeat the enemy? I think that is very wishful thinking.

1. The Global War on Terror (TM): Which candidate is going to recognize and defeat the enemy?

I have some thoughts that I will post but this comment caught my eye. Does anyone really think we can ever defeat the enemy? I think that is very wishful thinking.

I don't have time to address it right now, but you raise a very good point and one that raises a myriad of related issues.

1. follow the constitution - sounds simple, but we've gone back very far in the past 6 years. need to turn back portions of the patriot act, enact three equal parts of government (i.e. executive branch is not the strongest branch, congressional oversight, justice dept that is not a political body, etc.)

2. occupation in iraq - need to have a discussion without phrases like "war on terror", "cut and run", "surrender in iraq", etc. i want to know how we're going to get the needed troops to perform what we need them to, what the ultimate goal is and how we are going to achieve it. there is nothing the military can do to make the sunnis and shiias come together and form a bipartisan government. the people over there don't have power, clean water, stable work force or anything else they had before we occupied their country. winning the war is getting those people their way of life back. how will our military, who is stretched thin, going to do that?

along with this issue, i also want to see how we are treating the members of the military. when they are finished with service, why can't they leave the military? why can't they get quality mental health? why is it difficult to get rehabilitation? why are they sent back to 3, 4, 5 and 6 times to iraq or afghanistan? if there isn't enough troops we should not have overthrown a government.

the level of our military is a very real contraint in the decision to stay in iraq or not. both in terms of money and personnel. sure, if we could put another 300,000 troops in iraq, i'm sure marshall law would rule and the violence would quell a bit, but we don't have it. also, why are contractors taking more and more of our military functions? war profiteering? i think it was harry truman who said war profiteering was akin to treason. but this issue goes back to congressional oversight (issue number one for me) and if congress or anyone questions anything they are labeled anti-troop and anti-patriotic.

3. economy - having a stable fiscal policy where we pay for our own and stop borrowing from foreign govt. trickle down economics has never worked and will not work in the future. it makes a great advertisment and people like to repeat it. but there is nothing conservative about run away national debt. it's time to pay the piper and get our financial house in order. if we do not curtail these policies, the euro will be the worlds dominant currency and we'll lose a whole bunch of trading power.

1.) Guns
2.) Gays
3.) God


In that order. [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/ninja.gif[/img]

^^^LOL

1. The ecomony
2. War in the middle east (notice I didn't just say Iraq?)
3. The economy. I think education is important too but usually when the economy is in good shape everything else seems to fall into place in regards to schools getting the money they need.

1. Tax reform - People's money should be largely theirs, and the IRS should be abolished, the 16th Amendment repealed. Yes I'm radical.

2. Drug law reform - Marijuana legal and taxed, drugs treated as a health issue instead of a legal way to perpetuate racism.

3. Massive government cuts - The american people need to rediscover their entrepreneurial spirit, it's been stifled far too long by a bloated piece of shit Fed that over-regulates just about everything to the point of paralysis.

1. Tax reform - People's money should be largely theirs, and the IRS should be abolished, the 16th Amendment repealed. Yes I'm radical.

2. Drug law reform - Marijuana legal and taxed, drugs treated as a health issue instead of a legal way to perpetuate racism.

3. Massive government cuts - The american people need to rediscover their entrepreneurial spirit, it's been stifled far too long by a bloated piece of shit Fed that over-regulates just about everything to the point of paralysis.

The second most important issue to you politically is drug reform? That is surprising to say the least.

The second most important issue to you politically is drug reform? That is surprising to say the least.

I have a very low opinion of drug users, however, I can see a very good argument for reform, if not decriminalization or even legalization.

We spend an awful lot of money on the War on Drugs, the end result of which is locking away a lot of folks and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of progress in getting people to actually stop using drugs. A lot of these folks happen to be black folks (thus, AA's racism comment) who were convicted of possession of crack cocaine. The sentencing guidelines for possession or distribution of crack far exceed those for, say, cocaine or heroine.

There are also a lot of tangential issues related to the War on Drugs, such as "civil forfeiture," where some serious reforms are needed.

So I don't think it's all that unusual that it makes someone's top 3.



Interesting note: so far (8 responders, 6 male and 2 female), only one person has mentioned abortion and it wasn't in her top 3. Yet, if you listen to the pundits, it seems like this is the core issue at the heart of the left vs. right debate. In fact, the talking heads on TV would have you believe that a goodly portion of the public vote on that single issue alone.

Why surprising? It's a travesty.

Plus, I don't really believe that the war on terror is a huge threat to us as a nation. Yes, it must be fought, but they will never win using terrorist strategies, IMO, so I don't worry. The economy, I have faith in the american people to come out of it one way or another, plus the macro side of it is really over my head so I can't worry about it. Iraq, I really could not care less because I think it's entirely too unpredictable to expect a Prez to follow through on his word anyway. I don't think we should have troops in 130 countries around the world but they will never be brought home en masse, IMO.

Not sure what else I should put up there...seriously trying to think here...I think the gov should be about the size of my thumbnail.

I know about 40 zillion girls (and plenty of the guys too) at law school who would probably put abortion in their top three...but most of them are mindless drones, anyway, who suck down spoon fed issues like they are going out of style.

i said it shouldn't be a political issue at all, but because it's made one, i do have an opinion. i just wish politicians would stick to other (real) issues and let people make up their own minds. they know it's polarizing and will get people riled up, so they talk about it.

1. Education (although it should be a state, not federal, issue, IMO).
2. Environment
3. Economy

1. War on Terror/Military

2. Economy

3. Size of Government

1. War on Terror/Military

2. Economy

3. Size of Government

i said it shouldn't be a political issue at all, but because it's made one, i do have an opinion. i just wish politicians would stick to other (real) issues and let people make up their own minds. they know it's polarizing and will get people riled up, so they talk about it.

Just sayin', it wasn't in your top 3.

I just finished reading Jeffery Toobin's book, The Nine, which is about the modern Supreme Court, mostly the Rehnquist and Roberts eras.

He's a lefty, and his bias is pretty obvious throughout the book, but he makes a case that the religious conservative movement has been unrelenting in pushing for pro-life justices in the effort to get Roe v. Wade overturned. There's a lot of stuff in there about how the religious right derailed a couple of nominations that would've gone through. Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzalez were as conservative as they come, but because their records weren't clear on where they stood on the abortion issue, they disapproved of their nominations. And President Bush caved in to them until he nominated Samuel Alito.

It's an interesting read, and there's some good behind-the-scenes information about the nominating process. You wouldn't believe how many potential nominees Clinton went through before he settled on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It's almost comical how the selection process works.

Also, Chief Justice Roberts appears to have been born to be a Supreme Court Justice. The guy's background and career are flawless. It's really amazing and really makes me feel inadequate. He's the Terminator of Supreme Court Justices.

^^I noticed that about Roberts when he first got nominated. It's like he decided when he was 10 that he wanted to be CJ and planned his life in order to give himself the best chance.

God, how I love book reviews that begin with, "This author is a (insert political tag here) and his bias is obvious..." It's so positively Sovietesque, comrades!

God, how I love book reviews that begin with, "This author is a (insert political tag here) and his bias is obvious..." It's so positively Sovietesque, comrades!

Hey, man, read the book if you think I'm being a republitard. Everything in it was "conservative justices == evil" and "liberal justices == good." It's a good read and it gave me some food for thought, but (a) the guy is undeniably a liberal - he wrote for The New Republic and The New Yorker, for criminy's sake; and (b) his praise for the left wing of the court was almost mastubatory while his condemnation of the right wing of the court had an end-of-the-world feel to it.

I'm just sayin' that I don't necessarily agree with his argument but it made me think. I try to be open-minded, but I'm not a dummy. I can see where the guy's coming from in the first few pages of the book.

i said it shouldn't be a political issue at all, but because it's made one, i do have an opinion. i just wish politicians would stick to other (real) issues and let people make up their own minds. they know it's polarizing and will get people riled up, so they talk about it.

Just sayin', it wasn't in your top 3.

I just finished reading Jeffery Toobin's book, The Nine, which is about the modern Supreme Court, mostly the Rehnquist and Roberts eras.

He's a lefty, and his bias is pretty obvious throughout the book, but he makes a case that the religious conservative movement has been unrelenting in pushing for pro-life justices in the effort to get Roe v. Wade overturned. There's a lot of stuff in there about how the religious right derailed a couple of nominations that would've gone through. Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzalez were as conservative as they come, but because their records weren't clear on where they stood on the abortion issue, they disapproved of their nominations. And President Bush caved in to them until he nominated Samuel Alito.

It's an interesting read, and there's some good behind-the-scenes information about the nominating process. You wouldn't believe how many potential nominees Clinton went through before he settled on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It's almost comical how the selection process works.

Also, Chief Justice Roberts appears to have been born to be a Supreme Court Justice. The guy's background and career are flawless. It's really amazing and really makes me feel inadequate. He's the Terminator of Supreme Court Justices.

I ALMOST got that on amazon the other day, when I was in the mood to learn more about the SC... I instead settled on Peter Irons' a people's history of the SC... I wanted something that covered the entire history... I guess I'll have to pick up Nine anyway

God, how I love book reviews that begin with, "This author is a (insert political tag here) and his bias is obvious..." It's so positively Sovietesque, comrades!

In Doc's defense, I heard that about the book as well...

Don't let my Soviet-style review deter you (or anyone, for that matter) from reading it. There was a lot of good stuff in there, regardless of political affiliation.