THE RIGHT ANGLE: Listening to both sides - Opinions
A couple of weeks ago, I attended UNCG's final Debate Watch. As many of you know, the final presidential debate was a real snoozer. Let's face it: none of us watching the debate were expecting to learn anything new about the issues. We just wanted to see someone make an idiot out of themselves.
But I wasn't just a viewer at this Debate Watch. I had volunteered to be a discussion leader. This meant that after the debate was over, I had to engage a group of students in intelligent conversation about the issues. And throughout all of this, I had to be bipartisan.
Like most groups there, mine tended to lean toward the left. I sat there, gritting my teeth as I forced myself to not correct some of the participants' extremely misguided views. Luckily for them (and you!), I wrote down the question and answers, and I'm going to give you a little political lesson, because we all know how dangerous uninformed voting is!
THE QUESTION: What was discussed that you found irrelevant?
THEIR ANSWER: Bush's answer for everything was "education". More education will not help unemployment.
MY REPLY: I'm not sure about you, but there's a reason I'm in college: it's because I don't plan on being a waitress forever. Now, if you're in a major that is difficult to find a job in, well, that's not my problem. But for the most part, people go to college to make themselves more desirable to future employers. Bush's plan is one of the best I've heard: allow people whose jobs have been shipped overseas to go back to school. America is moving forward right now, and we're seeing a need for more and more jobs that require certain skills. Yes, we are losing some jobs, and even Kerry admitted there was nothing that could be done about that. But rather than sit around and cry about it, Bush wants to give these people the skills that they need to find a new job. How can anyone say that education is irrelevant here?
THE QUESTION: What is the most important issue in this election?
THEIR (FIRST) ANSWER: Iraq.
MY REPLY: Iraq is a big issue, and understandably so. We have thousands of American soldiers over there, bravely trying to make the world a safer place. And while I would love to see the troops come home as quickly as possible, I know that cannot happen immediately. My heart goes out to all the troops and their loved ones, but when I see antiwar protestors, I just want to scream at them and remind them that THERE WAS NOT A DRAFT. The soldiers in Iraq signed up for service, knowing that they could be called to duty at any time. When we first sent troops over to Iraq, the entire country was fairly certain that they posed an imminent threat to us. Now that we're there, we can't just pull out without regard to the Iraqis because of faulty intelligence, military scandals, or whiny antiwar protestors. I have faith that Bush will do the right thing in making sure Iraq's future is as secure as possible. I do not feel that Kerry has any right commanding our troops; the mindset that caused us to pull out of Vietnam prematurely and resulted in the massacre of over 3.5 million people is the same mindset that Kerry had then and still has today.
THE QUESTION: Most important issue?
THEIR (SECOND) ANSWER: We should make healthcare/higher education available to everyone.
MY REPLY: I know that everyone's basis for this theory is that Europe has universal healthcare. Well, yes, Europe does have universal healthcare and it works just fine for them. But the last time I checked, we are not a European nation. I love my country, but America has this way of screwing things up. Look at our public education system: it's not the greatest thing in the world. Do we really want our healthcare system to look like our public school system? For that matter, do we want our higher education to look like our public school system? Everything that works for Europe will not necessarily work over here. Besides, you can't complain about high taxes and then whine about not having universal healthcare, because no matter what Kerry tells you, you WILL be paying for that healthcare plan with your hard earned money. I'm not sure where he thinks money like that comes from. Perhaps he thinks we all had the good fortune of marrying a widowed millionaire?
So to make it simple for all you debate-watchers, what we have here are two distinct choices: we can vote for a man with several unspoken "plans", who does not take human life into consideration when ending a military conflict, and who thinks that you won't notice if he raises taxes to pay for his billion dollar, still unspoken "plans"; or we can re-elect the man who wants to improve your chances of getting a job, who cares about the welfare of people all over the globe, and who wants to give Americans the right to put more of their hard-earned money into their pockets. For lower taxes, compassion, common sense, and someone who knows where they stand at all times, re-elect George W. Bush in 2004.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Monday, October 18, 2004
A Tale of Two Men
The Right Angle : A Tale of Two Men - Opinions
All too often, people are elected based on what party they represent. I know people who vote Democrat simply because their parents did so. Whatever happened to voting on the issues, or voting on the person? Why is it Republicans are convinced Democrats are going to ruin the country, and liberals are convinced conservatives want to destroy the environment?
Today I'm going to force you to make a decision. I'm going to give you two candidates and ask you to chose which one you think would make a better leader. We're not going to go by names or parties, just issues and past experience.
Let's begin with Candidate A. Candidate A was born and raised in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He attended a local university and began a career working for a local company. Candidate A worked hard for 17 years at the local company, with no dreams of political grandeur. He entered politics in 1994 when he realized that rising taxes were crushing North Carolina's businesses. His concern for the welfare of North Carolina families won him a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, and he spent the next few years fighting for fiscal responsibility and affordable healthcare for North Carolinians. Worried that he was not serving his home state as well as he could be, Candidate A decided to run for U.S. Senate in 2004.
Candidate B, the son of a wealthy politician, was born and raised in Greensboro, North Carolina. He attended a business school in New York, and after graduation, he worked at a financial firm in New York City. He did not return to North Carolina until his father ran for governor of the state in 1972. With the exception of working on his father's campaign, Candidate B had basically no political experience until 1992 when he became involved in a fundraiser for that year's presidential campaign. As a reward for his loyalty, Candidate B was appointed to head of the Small Business Administration in 1993, deputy Chief of Staff from 1994-1995, and Chief of Staff in 1996. In 1998, the administration he was serving under found itself in a compromisingly sticky situation, and Candidate B suddenly missed his home state of North Carolina and could not wait to leave Washington. However, he must have started missing D.C., because in 2002, he ran for U.S. Senate. His campaign failed, and he is once again running for U.S. Senate in 2004.
I had the privilege of attending a senatorial debate between Candidate A and B a few weeks ago. Halfway through the event, it was blindingly apparent who the real North Carolinian was. Candidate A showed genuine concern for his constituents as he discussed repealing unnecessary taxes, attracting jobs to the state, lowering health care premiums, and improving education. Candidate B sounded like a tape-recording every time he opened his mouth, except for the few times he tried unsuccessfully to make a joke. Although the jokes were few and far between, they were all painful, as Candidate B apparently found himself much more amusing than anyone else did. The only issue Candidate B could stick to was that, when elected, he would work with both parties in the Senate. He never said what they would work on, but he repeated that same phrase several times. I found this amusing since he lost the 2002 senatorial race because of his lack of bipartisanship.
As a North Carolinian, do you see the predicament I am faced with? Candidate A is a hard-working family man with our state's best interests in mind, while Candidate B is simply trying to gain political power. For me, the choice is a no-brainer: Richard Burr (aka "Candidate A") knows this state, and he knows what we need. I was lucky enough to meet him on two occasions: once when I was 13, and again a few weeks ago at the senatorial debate. He is a genuinely nice person, approachable and very easy to talk to. Meeting him at the age of 13 definitely helped inspire me to go into politics.
On the other hand, I find Candidate B (Erskine Bowles) to be just a little scary. I have a theory that he is robot designed by the Democratic Party. If you think Bowles cares about North Carolina, you're sadly mistaken. It's not a coincidence that he chose to leave the Clinton administration during the middle of the Lewinsky scandal; he didn't want to ruin his future political goals. And if he had really wanted to leave D.C. so badly, why is he suddenly trying to go back? Bowles is no different from John Edwards; he only wants to use this Senate seat as a stepping-stone. He has much higher aspirations.
Take it from me: I've heard the issues; I've met the men. This goes far beyond party loyalty. A vote for Richard Burr is a vote for North Carolina's future. Trust me, North Carolina: when November 2 rolls around, elect Richard Burr to U.S. Senate. You won't regret it.
All too often, people are elected based on what party they represent. I know people who vote Democrat simply because their parents did so. Whatever happened to voting on the issues, or voting on the person? Why is it Republicans are convinced Democrats are going to ruin the country, and liberals are convinced conservatives want to destroy the environment?
Today I'm going to force you to make a decision. I'm going to give you two candidates and ask you to chose which one you think would make a better leader. We're not going to go by names or parties, just issues and past experience.
Let's begin with Candidate A. Candidate A was born and raised in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He attended a local university and began a career working for a local company. Candidate A worked hard for 17 years at the local company, with no dreams of political grandeur. He entered politics in 1994 when he realized that rising taxes were crushing North Carolina's businesses. His concern for the welfare of North Carolina families won him a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, and he spent the next few years fighting for fiscal responsibility and affordable healthcare for North Carolinians. Worried that he was not serving his home state as well as he could be, Candidate A decided to run for U.S. Senate in 2004.
Candidate B, the son of a wealthy politician, was born and raised in Greensboro, North Carolina. He attended a business school in New York, and after graduation, he worked at a financial firm in New York City. He did not return to North Carolina until his father ran for governor of the state in 1972. With the exception of working on his father's campaign, Candidate B had basically no political experience until 1992 when he became involved in a fundraiser for that year's presidential campaign. As a reward for his loyalty, Candidate B was appointed to head of the Small Business Administration in 1993, deputy Chief of Staff from 1994-1995, and Chief of Staff in 1996. In 1998, the administration he was serving under found itself in a compromisingly sticky situation, and Candidate B suddenly missed his home state of North Carolina and could not wait to leave Washington. However, he must have started missing D.C., because in 2002, he ran for U.S. Senate. His campaign failed, and he is once again running for U.S. Senate in 2004.
I had the privilege of attending a senatorial debate between Candidate A and B a few weeks ago. Halfway through the event, it was blindingly apparent who the real North Carolinian was. Candidate A showed genuine concern for his constituents as he discussed repealing unnecessary taxes, attracting jobs to the state, lowering health care premiums, and improving education. Candidate B sounded like a tape-recording every time he opened his mouth, except for the few times he tried unsuccessfully to make a joke. Although the jokes were few and far between, they were all painful, as Candidate B apparently found himself much more amusing than anyone else did. The only issue Candidate B could stick to was that, when elected, he would work with both parties in the Senate. He never said what they would work on, but he repeated that same phrase several times. I found this amusing since he lost the 2002 senatorial race because of his lack of bipartisanship.
As a North Carolinian, do you see the predicament I am faced with? Candidate A is a hard-working family man with our state's best interests in mind, while Candidate B is simply trying to gain political power. For me, the choice is a no-brainer: Richard Burr (aka "Candidate A") knows this state, and he knows what we need. I was lucky enough to meet him on two occasions: once when I was 13, and again a few weeks ago at the senatorial debate. He is a genuinely nice person, approachable and very easy to talk to. Meeting him at the age of 13 definitely helped inspire me to go into politics.
On the other hand, I find Candidate B (Erskine Bowles) to be just a little scary. I have a theory that he is robot designed by the Democratic Party. If you think Bowles cares about North Carolina, you're sadly mistaken. It's not a coincidence that he chose to leave the Clinton administration during the middle of the Lewinsky scandal; he didn't want to ruin his future political goals. And if he had really wanted to leave D.C. so badly, why is he suddenly trying to go back? Bowles is no different from John Edwards; he only wants to use this Senate seat as a stepping-stone. He has much higher aspirations.
Take it from me: I've heard the issues; I've met the men. This goes far beyond party loyalty. A vote for Richard Burr is a vote for North Carolina's future. Trust me, North Carolina: when November 2 rolls around, elect Richard Burr to U.S. Senate. You won't regret it.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Vote for my Daddy, He's Rich!
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Vote for My Daddy, He's Rich! - Opinions
Last week, Cate Edwards, John Edwards' daughter visited UNCG to talk about her father's campaign. Now, if you're like me, you probably saw fliers around campus announcing her arrival and thought, "Who is Cate Edwards?" And then you kept reading the flier, which eventually answered your question: Nobody.
When it comes down to it, Cate Edwards is little more than a spoiled little rich girl living off Daddy's money. Why was she going around answering questions about her father's campaign? Another good question! NO ONE KNOWS! My father is an accountant, but I don't travel around lecturing people on how to correctly do their tax returns.
After attending her speech, I found myself rather disappointed that I had missed my political science class for such fluff. Online columns that I looked up later lamented the fact that Cate was only invited to three North Carolina Universities, but the truth is, maybe they wanted to give their time and money to something better. Something that's maybe, I don't know, interesting and/or educational? Maybe something that would fill the entire auditorium? Don't let the TV clips fool you: they were frantically jamming kids in front of the news cameras so Cate and the College Democrats wouldn't look bad.
Ben Byrd, the president of the College Democrats, introduced Cate, touting her many "accomplishments" such as graduating from Princeton and being involved in her sorority, Pi Beta Phi. After listening to her speech, I lost all respect for a Princeton degree. I hope that everyone who scoffs at Bush's Yale degree was in our EUC listening to Princeton's finest last Monday, because it was quite painful listening to her stumble over big words like "convention."
Cate spoke to us about why we should vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004, but in her attacks against Bush, she left out some interesting facts. She told us about how many people had lost their jobs during the past four years, but failed to mention that our current president inherited this economy from President Clinton, the Democrat's golden boy. You'd think that someone with a degree in Political Economics would know this and would also know that, thanks to the Bush administration, the economy has been rising in more recent times. I'm disappointed that she forgot to tell us this. She also mentioned that health care premiums had risen, but failed to remind us that, as a trial lawyer, her father had a HUGE hand in causing those premiums to rise. I wonder if "hypocrite" has any meaning to her.
My favorite part was the question/answer session. The first two people to stand up didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "question" and instead preached at the crowd. The first woman ranted about Bush trying to reinstate the draft but neglected to inform the audience that the draft legislation making its way through Congress had been proposed by two Democratic senators, both of whom are staunch Kerry supporters. The second "question" was a rant about health care premiums going up, and I was once again disappointed in Cate for not setting the man straight.
But then the real questions began, and Cate got a chance to let her intelligence really shine. One person asked if she was discouraged by Bush's lead in the polls, and she stated her distrust in polls, which is understandable. She talked about how Bush had gotten a nice lead due to his convention, but some of the more recent polls she had seen had put Kerry in the lead. I spent an hour looking up different polls later that day, and not a one of them showed Kerry in the lead. Looks like Daddy's money can't buy everything.
Another person asked what she thought her father's most popular speaking point was, and after hmming and uhhing for a minute, she replied, "I don't have all of my father's talking points memorized." Are you kidding me? Okay, you're traveling around to different universities trying to rally votes for the Democratic ticket, and you don't even know your father's platform? Could you not just SAY something??
Cate, please do the world a favor and end your political career here and now. You're obviously not able to think on the spot. Every time you were asked a question, you'd pause and cock your head to the side. I mean, that's adorable when my puppy does it, but scary when someone I'm supposed to be taking political advice from does it. Let's face the facts: Daddy's money might buy you some nice things, including that pretty little Princeton degree, but it's obvious from your "speech" that money can't buy miracles. Next time, if he's that hard up for votes, let Daddy do his own campaigning. You can sit behind him and smile; that's really what you do best.
Last week, Cate Edwards, John Edwards' daughter visited UNCG to talk about her father's campaign. Now, if you're like me, you probably saw fliers around campus announcing her arrival and thought, "Who is Cate Edwards?" And then you kept reading the flier, which eventually answered your question: Nobody.
When it comes down to it, Cate Edwards is little more than a spoiled little rich girl living off Daddy's money. Why was she going around answering questions about her father's campaign? Another good question! NO ONE KNOWS! My father is an accountant, but I don't travel around lecturing people on how to correctly do their tax returns.
After attending her speech, I found myself rather disappointed that I had missed my political science class for such fluff. Online columns that I looked up later lamented the fact that Cate was only invited to three North Carolina Universities, but the truth is, maybe they wanted to give their time and money to something better. Something that's maybe, I don't know, interesting and/or educational? Maybe something that would fill the entire auditorium? Don't let the TV clips fool you: they were frantically jamming kids in front of the news cameras so Cate and the College Democrats wouldn't look bad.
Ben Byrd, the president of the College Democrats, introduced Cate, touting her many "accomplishments" such as graduating from Princeton and being involved in her sorority, Pi Beta Phi. After listening to her speech, I lost all respect for a Princeton degree. I hope that everyone who scoffs at Bush's Yale degree was in our EUC listening to Princeton's finest last Monday, because it was quite painful listening to her stumble over big words like "convention."
Cate spoke to us about why we should vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004, but in her attacks against Bush, she left out some interesting facts. She told us about how many people had lost their jobs during the past four years, but failed to mention that our current president inherited this economy from President Clinton, the Democrat's golden boy. You'd think that someone with a degree in Political Economics would know this and would also know that, thanks to the Bush administration, the economy has been rising in more recent times. I'm disappointed that she forgot to tell us this. She also mentioned that health care premiums had risen, but failed to remind us that, as a trial lawyer, her father had a HUGE hand in causing those premiums to rise. I wonder if "hypocrite" has any meaning to her.
My favorite part was the question/answer session. The first two people to stand up didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "question" and instead preached at the crowd. The first woman ranted about Bush trying to reinstate the draft but neglected to inform the audience that the draft legislation making its way through Congress had been proposed by two Democratic senators, both of whom are staunch Kerry supporters. The second "question" was a rant about health care premiums going up, and I was once again disappointed in Cate for not setting the man straight.
But then the real questions began, and Cate got a chance to let her intelligence really shine. One person asked if she was discouraged by Bush's lead in the polls, and she stated her distrust in polls, which is understandable. She talked about how Bush had gotten a nice lead due to his convention, but some of the more recent polls she had seen had put Kerry in the lead. I spent an hour looking up different polls later that day, and not a one of them showed Kerry in the lead. Looks like Daddy's money can't buy everything.
Another person asked what she thought her father's most popular speaking point was, and after hmming and uhhing for a minute, she replied, "I don't have all of my father's talking points memorized." Are you kidding me? Okay, you're traveling around to different universities trying to rally votes for the Democratic ticket, and you don't even know your father's platform? Could you not just SAY something??
Cate, please do the world a favor and end your political career here and now. You're obviously not able to think on the spot. Every time you were asked a question, you'd pause and cock your head to the side. I mean, that's adorable when my puppy does it, but scary when someone I'm supposed to be taking political advice from does it. Let's face the facts: Daddy's money might buy you some nice things, including that pretty little Princeton degree, but it's obvious from your "speech" that money can't buy miracles. Next time, if he's that hard up for votes, let Daddy do his own campaigning. You can sit behind him and smile; that's really what you do best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
