In addition to endorsing Hillary Clinton and John McCain, The Des Moines Register has published their views on some of the other candidates. Following are portions of their comments on some of the other candidates.
John Edwards: The question on Edwards is whether a self-described fighter for change, who wants to “cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington,” can get results in Washington. For someone trying to reunite the two Americas, would he be too divisive a figure?
Barack Obama: One board member described the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth it.
Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges. That’s not a bad choice.
Bill Richardson: He’s got good policy people. His energy proposals are especially ambitious. We like his emphasis on job growth and his willingness to borrow ideas across the party aisle. As an example, he echoes Republicans’ calls for a balanced-budget amendment and line-item-veto authority.
Though his policy proposals look good on paper, we found him less fluent across a range of issues than some of his rivals.
Rudy Giuliani: But some of his ideas for cutting the federal budget seem simplistic. Also of concern: his long association in government and private business with his former police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, who’s been indicted on corruption and tax-fraud charges, raising questions about Giuliani’s judgment. New York media also complained of secrecy and lack of transparency in his administration.
But we’re most troubled by his over-heated, fear-based approach to foreign policy. He frames today’s world as us versus them, summed up by this pledge from his Web site: “I will keep America on offense in the terrorists’ war on us.”
Mike Huckabee: We think his advocacy of a national sales tax to replace the income tax is a bit off the wall, though. And, at a time when the nation desperately needs to repair its standing in the world, he has virtually no foreign-policy experience.
Most worrisome: We couldn’t decide whether as president Huckabee would pursue the pragmatism and compassion we see in part of his record or take regrettable detours, veering toward hardheartedness or attempting to infuse his religious tenets into public policy, as he did in Arkansas through his support of abortion restrictions. He brags on his Web site, “I did all I could to protect life. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction.”
Ron Paul:This obstetrician who marches to his own drummer at the fringe of the party has built an Internet army with his call for withdrawal from Iraq and unwavering devotion to civil liberties — both attractive positions.
A one-time presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party, he lists his overall goals as “limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.”
That sounds like respected Republican ideology, but Paul takes it to the extreme. He would withdraw from the International Criminal Court, the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade deals because he sees them as a threat to sovereignty.
He would abolish the Internal Revenue Service, thinks the Federal Reserve fosters runaway debt and wants to return to the gold standard.
We’ll repeat the word used earlier: extreme.
Fred Thompson: He, too, takes an us-versus-them approach to foreign policy. And unlike the Ronald Reagan image he emulates, he’s sometimes downright cantankerous rather than inspiring.
“described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenge”
Whaaaat? surely they cannot be claiming that Hillary is a masterful politician at manuering needed legislation through Congress, are they? Hillary has not once passed any legislation through Congress that was needed, her one attempt at health care was a colossal failure and even worse is that she has never been a masterful politician ever! She is a brawler. So umcompromising that folks find her to be divisive. Please.
the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth
this is another poor analogy, while there is more risk with the bank shot it also requires GREATER SKILL, just the right touch! It is a physics trajectory…and requires far more ability and deft ball handling. As such, a bank shot is not a gamble when the person shooting is the consumate athlete! Obama is an extraordinary politician and he would bring the country together, no mattter how many straight shots HRClinton takes and misses!
Even though HRClinton takes the less risky shot, she doesn’t SCORE! So who cares if the shot has a higher percentage?
Hillary has had everything going for her, the Clinton machine, nasty Muslim email smears, drug dealing smears, kindergaren cop bashing trashing and she still is unable to beat a ROOKIE in his first time out on the national scene despite all her claims of being the toughest candidate and the one able to handle the GOP!!
This endorsement was a travesty and bought by the Clintons.
UGH!!!
Gracie,
There’s a dual problem. I’m also not so certain about how masterful a politician Clinton is, and even if she is masterful she is so frequently in error in what she pursues.