PRESIDENT MichiganReview THE
A SPECIAL ISSUE FROM
The Journal of Campus Affairs at the University of Michigan www.michiganreview.com
January 9, 2008
Illustration by Eun Lee
GOP Hopefuls Look to Michigan for Big Primary Win McCain, Romney, Huckabee seek momentum for White House bids By Jonathan Slemrod, ‘10
epublican Presidential hopefuls Mike Huckabee and John McCain scored decisive victories in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, respectively, raising new questions about the shape of things to come in the race for the White House in 2008. Those candidates now turn to Michigan, which holds its crucial primary next week, on January 15. Huckabee’s victory in Iowa was a huge blow to former Massachusetts Governor and Michigan native Mitt Romney, whose campaign has been largely focused on winning the early primaries. Romney had poured millions of dollars from his personal account into the states and established bases very early. Romney, the savior of the Salt Lake City Olympics, stumbled again in New Hampshire, where he had been favored in polls until early this fall. Arizona Senator McCain edged Romney by five percent in New Hampshire, casting serious doubt over Romney’s hopes at winning the Republican nomination and rejuvenating McCain’s campaign, which had been shrugged off as hopeless until recently. McCain won the Granite State’s primary in 2000 against then-Governor George W. Bush, and now seeks to build
momentum by taking another primary he won in 2000: Michigan’s. Romney and McCain are set to compete viciously for the primary, with a victory being seen as a “must” for both candidates many analysts. The role that Iowa Caucus victor Mike Huckabee might play in the primary is still indeterminate. Though he has polled well in the state, he may choose to devote more time and resources strategically to winning the South Carolina Republican primary the next week. On the Democratic side, Barack Obama took thirty-eight percent of the Iowa vote, dealing a huge blow to the Hillary Clinton campaign, which poured considerable resources into the Hawkeye State. Disappointing finishes by Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd caused them to drop out of the race. Astounding many experts, though, Clinton rebounded in New Hampshire Tuesday night, beating Obama by a narrow margin and silencing critics who declared Clinton’s campaign all but dead. Voter turnout in New Hampshire was very high at around 500,000, shattering the tally in 2000 by over 100,000 votes. In New Hampshire, gender played a large role, with women showing up in droves, and breaking largely for Senator Clinton. Due to national party rules, Demo-
crats have opted not to participate in the January 15 Michigan primary, though Hillary Clinton’s name remains on the ballot. In order to technically best Clinton next Tuesday, rival campaigns have encouraged Democratic primary voters to mark “uncommitted” on their ballot, rather than handing the New York Senator a symbolic victory. Republicans have struggled to disassociate themselves with policies of the Bush Administration while attempting to rekindle the flame of fiscal and social conservatism that many believe will reenergize the party base and lead to more decisive victories on the state and national level. Former Senator Fred Thompson raised the hopes of conservatives this summer with his long-term flirtation with entering the race. But he placed third in Iowa with thirteen percent behind Romney and Huckabee. Thompson did much worse in New Hampshire, taking sixth place with little more than one percent of the electorate. The Law & Order star has been dogged with accusations of lethargy on the campaign trail since the outset. Conversely, former New York Mayor and frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has not spent money or time in the early primaries, choosing instead to focus on the larger, national picture. Particularly
important in his campaign is Florida, which holds its primary on January 29. While the early primary states provide a snapshot of how effective candidates can be at spreading their message, fundraising, and mobilizing grassroots support, the real test will come on February 5, also known as Super Tuesday, when twenty four states making up half of the national delegates will hold their primaries. In these contests, candidates with national name recognition may stand to benefit the most. Early primaries tend to favor retail politics. That is, they favor good ground organizations and the baby-kissing, hand-shaking brand of politics. On Super Tuesday, after weeks of campaigning strenuously in one state at a time, candidates are forced to compete in a variety of large states, covering a diverse geographic area. This makes personal visits less feasible and national media coverage and debate performances all the more important. Before, then, Republicans must run the gauntlet in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida. Democrats turn their attention now to South Carolina (which holds its Democratic primary a week later than its Republican contest), and, to a lesser extent, Nevada on Saturday, January 19. MR
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW www.michiganreview.com
Michael O’Brien Editor-in-Chief Adam Paul Executive Editor Brian Biglin Managing Editor Rebecca Christy Senior Editor
page two. the michigan review
■ Serpent’s Tooth
he Michigan Review was able to obtain a transcript of a recent conversation between University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman and Democratic Presidential candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
COLEMAN: Good morning, Barack. Diversitychange and congratulations to you on your victories in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Lindsey Dodge Jonny Slemrod Associate Editors
OBAMA: Diversitychange to you too. I really want to thank you for your support in my hopeful vision-thing for diverse ways of changing America and soforth.
Chris Stieber Editor-at-Large
COLEMAN: Well, I think it’s important to change in diverse ways. For instance, did you know we just hired a Hispanic football coach?!
Business Staff: Karen Boore Publisher Danny Harris Anna Malecke Associate Publishers Nick Cheolas Editor Emeritus Staff Writers: Steven Bengal, Cherri Buijk, Jane Coaston, Marie Cour, Alexa Dent, Blake Emerson, Samm Etters, Austyn Foster, Erika Gonzalez, Mike Hamel, Josh Handell, Kris Hermanson, Alyse Hudson, Christine Hwang, Erika Lee, Eun Lee, Adam Pascarella, Alex Prasad, Danielle Putnam, Shanda Shooter, Andrea Sofian, Nathan Stano, Christina Zajicek, Zack Zucker
Letters and Viewpoints: The Michigan Review accepts and encourages letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters to the editor should be under 300 words. Viewpoints can be arranged by contacting the editorial board. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Send all correspondence to firstname.lastname@example.org.
About Us: The Michigan Review provides a broad range of in-depth coverage of campus affairs and serves as the literary voice of conservatism and libertarianism at the University of Michigan. The Review is published bi-weekly September thru April.
Donate/Subscribe: The Michigan Review accepts no financial support from the University. Therefore, your support is critical and greatly appreciated. Donations above $35 are eligible for a 1-year (12 issues) subscription. Donations can be made on our website at www.michiganreview.com, or mailed to:
911 N. University, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109 The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the University. Contributions to The Michigan Review are tax-deductible under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. The Michigan Review is not affiliated with any political party or any university political group. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the editorial board. Ergo, they are unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of The Review. The Serpent’s Tooth shall represent the opinion of individual, anonymous contributors to The Review, and should not necessarily be taken as representative of The Review’s editorial stance. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the advertisers or the University of Michigan. Copyright © 2007, The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.
of Michigan and the University in the future. OBAMA: Yeeeeah, bummer. COLEMAN: So what else can I do to help, my main man?
OBAMA: Ummm, that’s fantastic… COLEMAN: Well, I was just saying. It’s part of our University’s vision for hope in change…and, uh…stuff. OBAMA: Nonetheless, I’m hopeful I can visit your oh-so-diverse campus in the near future. I was really disappointed that the Democratic Party didn’t display some sort of hope in change for the great people of the United States of America by holding a primary in Michigan. COLEMAN: Yes, yes, I know. And I was looking forward so much to rallying our diverse student body to a youthful vision of change and hope for the state
OBAMA: What the hell is wrong with you? COLEMAN: C’mon, bro-sky! You know I can hang with the diverse-est of all the hopeful changers in the country…diversity. OBAMA: Ummm, I gotta go… COLEMAN: Don’t leave me hanging, homeslice! I can change…hopefully! [Click]
■ Letter from the Editor
olitical drama has unfolded in New Hampshire, and now the eyes of the state, the country, and the world turn to Michigan. The Democrats aren’t participating in Michigan, and that’s too bad. For our budding political journalists at The Michigan Review, that’s only half of a race we get to cover. But, excitingly, the Republican race for president, now in turmoil, comes to our home turf, and we’re here to cover every angle. One of the biggest storylines in the campaigns for the White House has been the youth vote. Many have spoken of the mobilization of the youth, particularly through websites like Facebook. (Adam Paul examines Facebook’s recent sponsorship of recent presidential debates on page 3.) But for as much as we hear about youth clamoring for “change,” “hope,” and whatever amorphous, intangible qualities in a candidate one could ask for, we often leave out the substance of campaigns. Instead of buying into the hype or conventional wisdom about a candidate, voters—young and old alike—should take the time to inform themselves on the issues, and pick a candidate that best reflects their own views. In that sense, a newspaper can be a profound public service. Newspapers can assemble that information in an easily accessible way, and encapsulate in their pages their own marketplace of ideas. We’ve sought to do that with this issue. In our cover story, for instance, Jonathan Slemrod gives us some context for the Michigan primary by covering the state of the race to date. Students who intend to vote, but haven’t been able to keep up with the latest developments in the race should appreciate this story. Throughout our issue, staff writers opine on why you should support the candidate they’re supporting. These polemic vignettes may sway
you, and I invite you to consider them carefully. Additionally, there are bits of hard information interspersed in this issue. There are updates in the polls (page 3), there are analyses as to why different candidates could win Michigan (page 5), and—in one of my favorite features—there are side-by-side comparisons of the Republican presidential candidates on the issues (pages 6-7). We hope these features will aid our readers in making their vote. I wanted to publish this issue because of what I sought to avoid. On the night of the Iowa caucuses, someone whom I’m Facebook friends with wrote as their status that they’re “sick of bigoted, ignorant assholes like Huckabee,” even though it was abundantly apparent that this person had little knowledge of Huckabee or his positions (except that he’s a Christian and a Republican). The noxiousness of such a statement truly scares me. We talk so much about ignorance on this campus, but sometimes its most common emergences escape us. This issue is dedicated to those who write Facebook slamming Republicans without understanding anything about GOP candidates. For that matter, too, it’s for conservatives who read Ann Coulter as though she were a prophet and slam the Clintons for the most asinine reasons. This issue is dedicated to a more intelligent politics; it’s dedicated to destroying political hacks, and self-segregating ideology. Then again, I hope the same could be said for all of our issues this year. Sincerely, Michael P. O’Brien Editor-in-Chief
Facebook Enters Fray With Presidential Forum Social networking website partners with ABC News to sponsor debates. By Adam Paul, ‘08
n the recent ABC “doubleheader,” Republican and Democratic primary debate planners made an attempt to attract a younger demographic by partnering with Facebook. While the collaboration was received on the web, the impact did not translate as well to the television broadcast. Before the ABC debate began, Facebook reported that over 1 million people had added its “U.S. Politics” application, which allowed users to post debates, videos, and access the Facebook pages News the over 500 Analysis of US politicians on Facebook. During the debate, 300,000 people took part in online debates, either by voting on the impact of particular statements or by posting more detailed thoughts. New questions, asking users to comment on issues like their perception of most Americans level of attention to the election and the possible impact of Senator Clinton’s “emotional moment” in New Hampshire on the primary, continue to be posted. These seemingly sizable numbers represent only a small share of Facebook’s over 60 million users. Along with common features like a mini-feed and video posting, the site offers a few more specialized features. The site presents users responses to polls and highlights contributions by users’ friends to debating groups. While this allowed ‘plugged in’ users to stay in touch, it is unclear if the site attracted users not interested in politics. Charles Gibson’s introduction of the partnership did not stress the site’s relevance. ABC only commented that the site is large and that over a million users had added the US Politics ap-
plication to their accounts at the start of the debate. While ABC’s Bianna Golodryga operated a “Facebook command center” on the station that asked real-time questions to users, many of the questions discussed were quite broad. Questions like, “Based on the debate, do you think that Democrats could keep America safe from foreign threats?” were so broad as to make a pollster’s head spin. Do foreign threats include strong competition from Japanese automotives or are we actually talking about terrorism? The debate also missed the opportunity to point out that Facebook is far from a representative sample of the American public. It’s a young demographic and that makes a big difference in their political persuasion. As Facebook’s politics site shows, while Barrack Obama has twenty-seven percent support in current ABC News polls, about sixty-one percent of Democratic Facebook supporters support him. On the Republican side Facebook is even more skewed with thirty-seven percent of Republican Facebook users supporting Ron Paul, who only gets
new young people to the debates. Those who had already planned to spend their Saturday night away from their televisions were unlikely swayed by a reminder on their Facebook page. This was seen in the comments made on the site. Most people were just using the site to tell people how much they loved their pre-chosen candidate. These results are particularly unfortunate because the YouTube debates showed that new technology could be integrated into politics with positive results. Those debates allowed interesting questions from average Americans to get aired. They even resulted in the pair of guys from Red State Update becoming niche YouTube stars. The debates on ABC utilized Facebook as just another polling tool and missed out on the chance to use the information in an innovative way. With its massive youth membership, Facebook can be a powerful tool to attract young people to this year’s election season. While the recent collaboration with ABC provided new ways for uses to interact with politics, changes that better utilize that engage-
This debate brought to you by facebook. Mitt Romney will totally add you as a friend; he’s desperate for them right now.
six percent of the supporters in ABC’s poll. It remains unclear if the co-sponsorship by the site was able to attract
ment during televised broadcast could lead to more interactive experiences for television audiences as well. MR
Poll Update McCain
12 G 10 T
18 G 16 T
8 M C
20 M C
Giuliani is the ultimate New Yorker: pushy, opinionated, individualistic—and effective. Currently a partner in the law firm of Bracewell & Guiliani, he joined the office of the United States attorney in his twenties. Under Ronald Reagan, he was first named Associate Attorney General, then a United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he successfully spearheaded numerous groundbreaking mafia prosecutions. In 1993, Giuliani became the first Republican mayor of New York in over a decade, and more importantly, he was reelected in 1997 with a fifty-seven percent approval rating in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans five to one. Under his leadership, New York went from practically unlivable to the safest large city in America. As mayor, he also took an inherited 2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus by cutting taxes and controlling spending, the mores of fiscal conservatism. He also cut welfare by nearly sixty percent, as well as famously leading the recovery of New York after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Despite complaints concerning his personal life, history has demonstrated that a man’s family life is fairly unrelated to his performance as president, from FDR to Ronald Reagan. By looking at his record, this is clearly a Presidential candidate who knows how to take down the bad guys. Almost as importantly, he can do it without draining the American economy and spirit. A constructionist lawyer to the core, he is incisive and can determine what the most important issues are. Giuliani’s issues are homeland security, improving not only our economy but our international economic reputation, and limiting big government by cutting down bureaucracy, enforcing the laws we have as opposed to creating new ones, and increasing economic competition.
4 MRG, 12/04-12/07 5 R
Detroit News, 12/16-19
By Lindsey Dodge, ‘10
Why I’m Voting For...
16 G 9 T
editorials. the michigan review
The Michigan Review T
he Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Editorial Board. Ergo, they are unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of the Review.
The Review welcomes letters to the editor. Send letters to:
email@example.com The Review reserves the right to edit letters to the editor for length and clarity.
Some Things to Keep in Mind Michigan Review When Casting Your Primary Vote Staff Straw Poll
Note: The results below in no way reflects the editorial opinion of The Michigan Review. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the Review refuses to endorse any party or candidate for office.
Our hope is that voters select a candidate who is consistently oriented toward the free market, has a nuanced and innovative strategy for the war on terror and foreign policy, and can authentically articulate values without using them to be manipulative.
15% 15% 15%
Undecided (2 votes)
None (3 votes)
Rudy Giuliani has taken a limited approach, cheering tax cuts and claiming they will pay for themselves. He seems focused on only one side of supply-side economics, including avoiding addressing needed spending cuts. McCain, as with other issues, has been a maverick. He has been a consistent free trader, a deficit hawk, and even has resisted subsidies for ethanol. Mitt Romney may be the most qualified on global economic issues. As he said in the Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan, the issue of the Michigan economy is “personal” to him. We laud him for this, and feel confident in his business leadership abilities, as exemplified by his work in the private sector. Mike Huckabee has been criticized for raising a variety of state taxes including: sales, tobacco, and internet taxes. He has been attacked by the Club for Growth, and rightly so. Despite feigning support for fiscally conservative issues now, it is difficult to trust him. While social issues remain important among conservatives, they are, thankfully, playing a lesser role in this election cycle. Some voters’ suspicion of Giuliani’s support for—or at best lukewarm resistance to—abortion remains a stumbling block for his campaign among the Religious Right. Yet unlike the previous Bush campaigns, candidates have not stressed the same compassionate conservative image. Huckabee has managed to take strong stances in support of traditional marriage and faith-inspired politics while subtly reversing the stereotype as social conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. For this, we applaud him. When it comes to the ever (un)popular issue of healthcare, all the candidates challenge the paradigm of state-control espoused by Democrats. Romney has stressed his Massachusetts policies as a model for other states. McCain remains critical of Romney’s plan for creating tax penalties for those who do not get insurance. The issue is important to Michigan voters, as the auto industry continues to struggle due, in large part, to rising health care prices. But overall, we encourage Michigan voters to carefully consider these candidates on a variety of issues. A vote for any candidate should be well-considered and well-informed. Our hope is that voters select a candidate who is consistently oriented toward the free market, has a nuanced and innovative strategy for the war on terror and foreign policy, and can authentically articulate values without using them to be manipulative. These are the values we endorse for the primary on January 15. MR
Rudy Giuliani (3 votes)
s the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses have passed the opportunity—and obligation—now falls to Michigan voters (at least on the Republican side) to pick the best candidate for president. Before and through this moment, there has been a sense of dissatisfaction with the field of candidates, and rightly so. For a coalition as fractious as ever, it has become increasingly difficult to find a candidate to unite such a base. But even when candidates come along who do try to be the candidate of unity—or, daresay, “change”—they come off as askew or inauthentic. The Republican candidates for president leave something to be desired. The Review does not endorse candidates for the presidency, or any other office, for that matter. While this year’s slate, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in particular, have taken to mentioning Ronald Reagan at every opportunity, none of them have the charisma or completeness of Reagan. No one candidate has yet to establish himself as a run-away contender for the national nomination. Fortunately, rather than just spouting about the efficacy of “change,” the Republicans have managed to establish differences on key policy issues. On foreign policy, the War in Iraq and the greater War on Terror have taken up a great amount of time for this year’s candidates. While the Republicans— Congressman Paul notwithstanding—have been generally supportive of the war and resisted timetables, the candidates have emphasized different aspects of the conflict. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have both pushed platforms that assert wide latitude to pursue terrorists worldwide, even if national governments are not supportive. Their lack of experience on such matters is troublesome, however. The same can be said for Giuliani, who, let us not forget, has actually no qualifications on foreign policy except for being the mayor of New York City on September 11th. Being a victim of a horrendous attack does not a great president make. Fred Thompson and John McCain can at least boast experience in the deliberative Senate. McCain continues to stress his work to develop and support the surge policy, which has seen tactical success in recent months. A consistent supporter of the War in Iraq, he looks increasingly vindicated by the so-called “surge” in Iraq. Thompson, though lethargic in campaigning, has if nothing else been gung-ho in his similar positions supporting the War. In regards to the economy, the candidates again have different platforms. With Michigan currently in a one-state recession and forecasts for a national recession becoming more common, the candidates’ proposals could not be more important.
John Mccain (8 votes)
We asked our staff members to submit the name of the presidential candidate they most supported. Below are the results.
Mitt Romney (3 votes)
These are the values we endorse on January 15.
Three Good Reasons the frontrunners could win Michigan: John McCain
He won Michigan in its 2000 Primary. His reputation is solid among voters, and he will be able to reference his past success during campaign stops.
West Michigan. This region has a significantly higher proportion of social, religious conservatives compared to Southeast Michigan. Such conservatives were key to Huckabee’s Iowa victory. Turnout will be key, or else the West Michigan impact would be diminished by voters in other regions.
His heavy advertisement blitz, where he talks about “Michigan being personal” and the one-state recession being “unacceptable,” will hit home and appeal to many.
His name recognition and strong poll data from fall 2007 (he was at one point the frontrunner in Michigan) suggest that he has strong latent support.
He will appeal to a substantial protectionist electorate. Despite embracing free trade and the idea of competing with China, he drops in many lines about “leveling the playing field” and making sure America remains a major manufacturer. It is hard to know exactly what policy repercussions this would have, but any talk of keeping manufacturing jobs appeals to many in Michigan.
He’s different: he’s not a southerner and does not talk like one, which may make him more familiar to Michiganders. His perspective and different background also registers with metropolitan voters: there are millions more of these in Michigan compared to other early primary states.
This is his big chance to unseat Romney, and he may put in extra campaign effort. The timing could not be more perfect, with the growing tension between the two candidates.
His maverick personality and record fit Michigan. Unlike George W. Bush or Mike Huckabee, he is not overly positive, and will delve into issues where change is needed. Considering Michigan’s general attitude in the midst of its recession, this may work well with the electorate.
Momentum. He won Iowa and competed in New Hampshire. He will emphasize Michigan’s chance to be part of this key moment, and they may bite at the opportunity.
Positive tone. While McCain’s realism may appeal to many recession-weary Michigan residents, it is also possible that Huckabee’s positive outlook may inspire Michiganders who prefer to look forward.
Compiled by Brian Biglin
1 2 3
Romney’s Michigan ties (he was born in Detroit) might get him far, if voters believe that, if elected, he would provide policy or expenditures that help Michigan.
1 2 3
Rudy’s record on crime reduction—debates on his actual impact on New York City’s improvement aside—will jibe with crime-weary residents of the I-75 corridor (Saginaw to Detroit), many of whom view safety as key to the revitalization of Michigan’s cities.
Why I’m Voting For...
Why I’m Voting For...
By Anna Malecke, ‘10
By Josh Handell, ‘11
Michigan native Mitt Romney is one of the more formidable candidates in this year’s race for the White House. Raised in Bloomfield Hills, Romney has strong ties to the state of Michigan, where his father George served as governor from 1963 to 1969. Romney earned degrees in law and business from Harvard and eventually entered into venture capitalism where he helped grow Bain Capital into a multi-billion dollar corporation. In 1999 he took over the planning of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and dug it out of a $400 million deficit. Romney successfully ran for governor in Massachusetts in 2000, defeating a popular Democratic candidate in the blue state. During his time in office, Romney extracted the state from a 3 billion dollar deficit without raising taxes. He championed a universal health care policy which won bipartisan support in Massachusetts’ Congress and was widely supported among voters and businesses. Although his positions differed during his gubernatorial tenure, Romney is now a prolife candidate, against harvesting stem cells for research as well as cloning. He supports the current troop surge strategy in Iraq, and he favors a tougher stance on illegal immigration. Romney’s biggest asset as a presidential candidate is his track record for getting things done. In a country with a deficit reaching nearly 600 billion and a budget unable to cover the rising costs of health coverage and social security payments, we need a president who can reach across the aisle and find viable solutions to our nation’s formidable problems. Mitt Romney’s experience proves he is that candidate.
When the story of the Democratic presidential primary is recorded for posterity, it will be portrayed as a battle between experience and change, and nowhere is this conflict better embodied than in the rivalry between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Undoubtedly, there have been successful presidents with very little experience and failed administrations stocked with the weightiest résumés. Many have argued that Obama’s status as a political newcomer allows him to start off with a blank slate and build a broad national consensus that has been torn apart by the polarization of the Clinton-Bush Era; the junior senator from Illinois is certainly fluent in the language of hope and unification. But as the primary domain of the American presidency has shifted from domestic matters to foreign affairs, proficiency in the language of power is a greater necessity. Of all the candidates, only Hillary Clinton has lived in the White House and energetically participated at the peak of governmental power: she is no stranger to the possibilities and perils of the presidency. Perhaps some of Clinton’s policies are still too socialistic for the American people. Yet whether for good or ill, the political climate in 2008 virtually assures the election of a Democrat. The next president will inherit an economy rapidly losing its global market share, a nation entrenched in a seemingly unremitting war, and a people deeply divided between traditional and progressive social mindsets. Hillary Clinton is not the most exciting candidate, but she’s the right (wo)man for the job.
Mitt, Mike, or McCain? Who will take Michigan? Why I’m Voting For... ...Mike Huckabee
By Adam Pascarella, ‘10 Governor Mike Huckabee has risen from an unknown Arkansas governor leading in the shadow of former Governor Bill Clinton into a dangerous force for the presidency. While he’s most recognizable because of his sharp-tongued rhetoric, his humor has galvanized voters to listen to his innovative message. Governor Huckabee has realized Americans are striving for change and have become disheartened with the broken political system in Washington. Take tax reform, for instance. Americans realize that our tax system is inefficient and have responded to Huckabee’s plan to adopt the Fair Tax. This tax would eliminate the income tax and adopt a twenty-three percent consumption tax levied upon purchases of a new good or service. To assist low-income Americans, a rebate for basic living needs is given based on recipients’ income. The tax is revenue neutral and would inspire growth by creating incentives for corporations to move to America
and create more jobs. Huckabee realizes that Americans are disgusted with being punished for their hard work and his plan would eliminate the mangled IRS. Besides his innovative economic plans, Huckabee has a proven record of growth as governor. He raised education standards and significantly improved Arkansas’ National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores. He cut taxes ninety times and left office with an $800 million surplus. Plus, Huckabee has pledged to hunt down any terrorist organization that wishes to harm America. While some have criticized Huckabee for having no foreign policy experience, Americans must realize that presidents rely on their advisors for foreign policy advice. Even President Ronald Reagan had virtually no foreign policy experience, yet is frequently credited for ending the Cold War. Huckabee has achieved enormous successes in Arkansas and was previously recognized as one of the best five governors in America by Time. If elected, he will retain his successes as governor and create a prosperous America for every citizen.
It was the right decision to America to not join the Kyoto treaty. Invest in nuclear power, limit carbon emissions, and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
McCain has called for drug use treatment and prevention with private health services. He has strongly resisted marijuana legalization.
McCain proposes lowing taxes to make it easier for families to afford to send their children to college.
“Everytime the US went protectionist…we’ve paid a very heavy price,” McCain said recently in a speech in Dearborn.
Seeks “energy independence” by the end of a second term. Wants the federal government to match private investment into alternative energy reserach.
While against legalization of drugs, Huckabee has advocated a turn toward separate drug courts but has indicated that educational prevention programs are not effective.
Huckabee stresses higher standards for educators as well as giving more power to the states in setting most education policy.
Huckabee has stressed that outsourcing cannot come at the expense of our ability to feed and fuel ourselves.
Supports nuclear power, and ANWAR oil drilling near Alaska. America must reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Evaluate alternatives to raising CAFE standards.
Like his opponents, Romney is not going to make major changes to the drug war. He has linked the issue to his support for the family and American children.
Established a scholarship fund in MA that gave full-tuition scholarship to 14,000 students in state universities. Advocates cutting taxes to make college more affordable.
Using his business background, Romney has called for allowing firms to make more decisions on trade. Romney has stressed the opportunities for firms to sell to new markets.
Supports increased use of nuclear power, ethanol and biofuel, and clean-burning natural gas.
Giuliani views the war on drugs as a part of his foreign policy and has linked fighting drugs to attempts to reduce crime.
Giuliani has pushed for more market forces in education choices and increased control at the state level.
Giuliani has called for the US to cut its foreign debt by increasing exports as well as supporting trade deals recently before Congress with countries like South Korea.
America should invest His previous votes to in renewable and alter- increase funding to native fuels. fight drugs and to increase penalties for drug trafficking indicate that he would make little change from recent policies.
Thompson wants more students to pursue math, science, and technology careers to increase America’s global competitiveness.
Thompson has characterized government attempts to resist trade as inefficient ‘planning.’ Thompson voted in 2000 to permanently normalize trade relations with China.
Reduce subsidies, extend tax credits to fuel cell, solar, and wind energy technology to encourage investment.
Paul sees all public education as monopoly. He has advocated home-schooling and private universities.
Has argued for removing all tariffs and barriers to trade. Also sees all trade agreements from NAFTA to membership in the WTO as threats to national sovereignty.
Paul has called for the legalization of hemp. He has the War on Drugs “a failure.” He has called for leaving drug policy up to the states.
McCain has supported the war from the beginning. Recently, he has stressed increased for ground forces and his role in creating and supporting the surge.
Believes that the quality of health care is an individual’s responsibility. Supports giving individual’s $2,500 refundable tax credits for healthcare.
Make Bush tax cuts permanent, reduce earmarks and other wasteful spending. Require 3/5 majority to raise taxes. Repeal Alternative Minimum Tax
Huckabee has resisted timetables for withdrawal as a symbol of defeat and called the war in Iraq “a battle in our generation, ideological war on terror.”
Romney has pushed increasing the size of the military. He stresses the worldwide danger of Jihad, of which Iraq is just one front. Romney remains committed to Iraq.
Opposes mandated health insurance and universal coverage. He favors Individually-controlled insurance and an Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. Procedure involves getting people insured with state-based market dynamics. He plans to insure 45 million uninsured with a freemarket based system.
Eliminate IRS and institute consumption tax. Give President line-item veto to control spending.
Make Bush tax cuts permanent. Reduce corporate tax rate and eliminate death tax. Cut waste to reduce spending.
Giuliani has presented success in Iraq as key to preventing larger regional instability. He has resisted timetables and stated that he would support General Petraeus’ needs.
Favors switching from employer decisions to individual choices. He is also opposed to socialized medicine and would opt for vouchers for the impoverished.
Thompson says Iraq is a key part of national security. Thompson has talked more about the threat from WMD’s and homeland defense than the other candidates.
Wishes to separate employment and healthcare by making insurance portable. He also wants to lower cost through more efficient markets, not bigger government.
Make Bush tax cuts permanent. Allow taxpayers to choose between current system or two-rate flat tax. Reduce corporate tax rate, eliminate death tax and AMT.
Paul is the only Republican against the War. Paul favors a withdrawal from Iraq and presents diplomacy and free trade as an alternative foreign policy.
Believes that government as well as insurance companies make healthcare unaffordable. He opposes mandated health insurance and universal coverage.
Make Bush tax cuts permanent. Reduce foreign entanglements to reduce budget. Reduce printing of money, and eliminate IRS and federal agencies to reduce spending.
Make Bush tax cuts permanent. Eliminate death tax, index AMT to inflation. Lower corporate tax rate.
Why I’m Voting For... John McCain By Zack Zucker
Photo courtesy of the Associated Press
Here’s a little straight talk. John McCain is your homeboy. You just don’t know it yet. Forget the fact that he is an American hero. Forget the fact that he is the most accomplished legislator of the last 20 years. Vote for John McCain because he is the only staunch conservative among Republican contenders. Or, if you aren’t a fan, look to the fact that he’s running against an untrustworthy flip-flopper more concerned about corporate interests than the little man (Mitt Romney), a Democrat (Rudy Giuliani), a farcenter Bush clone (Mike Huckabee), a delusional hippie (Ron Paul), and the crypt keeper (Fred Thompson). If you’re a conservative, John McCain is the right man for the job. He’s like the extra strength Tylenol of the Presidential race—tough enough to get the job done, but without all the nasty side effects. John McCain is the only man in the race who had the cajones to support the current strategy in Iraq from the get go. As the “surge” is proving to be working, it just demonstrates how McCain is truly the most experienced candidate on national security issues. McCain gets a bad wrap among conservatives. They point to his constantly working with Democrats. But when did it become a bad thing to try to bring this country together? They point to his views on immigration and campaign finance reform and immigration. But I don’t hear a more hard line candidate explaining exactly how they plan on deporting 12 million people. And campaign finance reform is not exactly a major issue. McCain is the right man for conservatives and liberals alike. Who else could win endorsements from both the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press? If you still need convincing, look to the head-to-head polls. McCain is the only Republican candidate that can beat Hillary or Obama.
Why I’m Voting For... ...Ron Paul By Adam Paul, ‘08 Ron Paul is not going to be the next president of the United States, yet voting for him in Michigan’s primary may not be a bad idea. For Republicans dissatisfied with the field, a strong showing would further energize his fiercely dedicated supporters. He’s also the only Republican against continued presence in Iraq.
Why I’m Voting For... candidate far into the race. Paul has shown himself an able fundraiser, raising $4.3 million on November 5th and then taking in nearly $6 million on one day in December, beating out John Kerry’s one-day fundraising record. Even more surprising was that a large amount of those donations were small, with a median value of $50, and came from 1st time donors to the campaign. Plus, the Libertarian Party, which Paul ran with for the presidency in 1988, has even called on him
...Barack Obama By Jane Coaston, ‘10 A recent editorial cartoon in an Ohio newspaper placed Barack Obama next to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.— King saying “I have a dream,” Obama holding a map with an arrow drawn from Iowa to New Hampshire and saying, “And I have a roadmap.” Obama may lack the experience of his counterparts, but he more
Democratic Convention—an America made up of more than Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. His intelligence and willingness to look past partisan allegiances will be necessary skills as president. His policies are based not on toeing the Democratic Party line, but taking a hard look at past decisions made domestically and internationally in order to chart a new course. After over a decade of divisive political tactics by both Democrats and Republicans that have left America in
Ron Paul may not be the next president of the United States, but he might be the best pick for dissatisfied Republicans.
Barack Obama may lack the experience of his Democratic counterparts, but he more than makes up for it in ideas, common sense, and hope.
A lot has been made this election cycle about change. If Americans are really judging on that criterion, Paul is the obvious choice. He wants to dismantle large parts of the government, including eliminating the IRS and scrapping the Federal Reserve. While many may scoff at making a symbolic vote, Paul may be the best shot in years to push a third
than makes up for it in ideas, common sense, and hope. His roadmap comes at a time when it is desperately needed. Recent polls show that only tiny minorities of Americans believe the economic situation will improve in 2008, and many hold out no hope for an improvement in domestic or international crises. Obama stated his vision at the 2004
Why I’m Voting For... ...Fred Thompson By Jonathan Slemrod, ‘10 The Republican Party desperately needs to rediscover the principles of limited government. All of the major candidates on the Republican side have serious flaws; John McCain supported anti-free speech campaign finance reform and a botched immigration bill, Mitt Romney flip-flopped on abortion and Rudy Giuliani supports social policies that simply aren’t in line with most of the G.O.P. base. Former Senator and TV star Fred Thompson is a breath of fresh air in a field of candidates that would make Ronald Reagan roll over in his grave. For many reasons, Thompson has not emerged as a front running candidate. 2008 has been the most expensive election in history, and Thompson was hurt badly by his decision to not enter the race until September. In debates, he has appeared grumpy and uninterested, and his third place finish in the Iowa caucus doesn’t help his cause either. But beyond the media is an experienced man of principle that sticks out like a sore thumb when contrasted with political opportunists like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Thompson has a proven record of supporting Republican policies during his two terms as a Senator. Thompson supports lowering taxes, strengthening our borders and military and reducing government bureaucracy at all levels. Thompson has run off the platform of being the only “true” conservative in the election, and he couldn’t be more correct. The Republican voter that is looking for a candidate that isn’t interested in the limelight or making government an even bigger burden should vote for Fred come January 15th.
to seek their nomination this year- a possibly Paul has yet to flatly reject. The range of issues pushed by Paul, and only Paul, make his campaign a vehicle to pressure other candidates to at least have to contend with alternative, strict Constitutionalist options. Hopefully a few of those ideas will bleed into other campaigns, even if Paul drops out.
economic stagnation domestically and further military involvement abroad, its time for a presidential candidate who not only espouses the language of change, but is willing to put in the work and to make the decisions that create substantive difference.