Ideas vary at 2004 election
Beth Boscardin
The day
approaches. Adults everywhere prepare to wait for their turn to crowd into the
little enclosed booth and pull the curtain closed behind them. Filling in
little circles or punching out elliptical ovals, somehow, these millions of
people across the country manage, after “x” amount of deliberation, to select
the next leader of their country.
Be it by appearance,
popularity, or political promise, these citizens determine the future of the
United States of America.
On May 11, 2004, any U.S.
citizen who will turn 18 by Nov 10 can vote, provided they register.
President Bush, the certain
candidate for the Republican Party definitely has the popularity points; now
citizens must determine whether his performance as president merits another
four years in this prestigious position, or whether he’s lost the boat.
The Democrats lack the
certainty of the opposing party. Nine potential candidates exist, each of whom
has a full posse trailing behind.
Missouri Democrat Dick
Gephardt of Missouri outspokenly supports the war in Iraq, while offering
alternative healthcare and energy plans.
While focusing primarily on
national issues, Gephardt staunchly supports the implementation of an
international minimum wage, ensuring all laborers adequate salaries. Gephardt
also supports the pro-choice agenda and an increase in gun control.
Also supporting Bush’s war
efforts in Iraq, Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry completely supports war in
cases as the previous.
Planning to increase the job
market and decrease energy crises, Kerry also encourages becoming energy
independent, thus completely liberalizing America from foreign oil and opening
more jobs.
As an aside, Kerry supports
single-sex marriages and lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military
procedure. He plans to devote energy and time to curing, or at least greatly
reducing, AIDS deaths in Africa.
John Edwards interests are
not as widely spread. He supports the middle class. He believes in the middle
class. He ties everything to the middle class.
“I believe the backbone of
the American economy is the hard work, determination, and ingenuity of the
middle class – not the insiders. I believe the way to grow the economy is to
grow and strengthen the middle class, not to shrink its size and add to its
burdens,” said Edwards, addressing the future of American society.
In doing this, he proposes investing in new teachers,
adding after school programs, improving high school standards and making
college education reasonable for middle class families.
Edwards’s platform focuses
especially on the homeland issues of education, healthcare and tax breaks for
the middle class.
On the other hand,
democratic army General Wesley Clark of Arkansas follows the tradition of
militaristic presidential candidates. As a military figure, he’s the present
day George Washington or Ulysses Grant.
Opposing the Bush
administration’s Iraqi invasion, Clark, a Vietnam veteran and valedictorian of
WestPoint Military Academy, provides true criticism and a logical rationale on
the attack rather than merely disagreeing with this strategy, as so many other
candidates practice.
Clark realizes warfare is
destruction, for the most part, and shouldn’t be taken lightly. He understands
the equilibrium stabilizing the U.S. government.
Becoming Democratic from his
previous Independent party alliance, Clark supports pro-choice, increased gun
control, homosexual rights and affirmative action. As he looks to the future,
his 100 Year Vision lays out his plans for environmental protection,
increased employment prospects and the education program, among other things.
Clark is all for increasing
the rights of same-sex couples, but, without the drastic statement made by Mr.
Howard Dean III, a Vermont Democratic candidate, this might not even be an
issue. Dean legalized same-sex marriages in the state of Vermont. Obviously,
this caused quite a stir among members of both parties; fortunately Dean was up
to the attention.
Bluntly stating his stance
on different issues, while also frankly rebutting other candidate’s positions,
Dean pushes for global changes and realizes the United States has immense
influence worldwide.
Dean believes leadership,
not only on the grand scale, but also in the form of small entrepreneurial
businesses plays a significant role in the formation of the U. S. economy.
Even more than a leadership position in world
affairs, Ohio Democrat Dennis Kicinich stresses the responsibility of this
country for the peace of posterity. He said, “Violence is not inevitable. War
is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this
word a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our
lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children
from fear, from harm, from distruction.”
A tad idealistic, Kicinich,
having recently switched from pro-life to pro-choice, now encouraging abortion
prevention by “making it less necessary.” In other words, he suggests resolving
the problems in healthcare and education in an attempt to increase the standard
of living, improve sex education and foster an increase in birth control.
While he doesn’t expect to
gain the Democratic vote, it’s very probable that Kicinch would receive
endorsement from the Natural Law Party.
At first, second tier
parties such as this don’t seem that significant, however, when entire
associations blindly support one candidate, it greatly skews the results of any
poll, test, or survey taken that day.
Democratic candidate Carol
Moseley Braun is running with the support of the women’s associations.
African-Americans will also vote for her because she’s African-American.
Braun promotes future female
candidates and set a precedence for women in the primaries to come.
On May 11, 2004, Nebraska Democrats
have the opportunity to choose which politician will best run against Bush
in the November election. No matter one's political ideology, the candidates
come from such diverse backgrounds and ideology, everyone should be able to
find someone to support.