delphi_ote said:
Delphi Ote here of the Running for Office Thread Times. I have two questions for our candidates. My first question is: what aspect of the U.S. government do you see as most in need of reform or correction and how would you propose to bring about these reforms from your position as president should you be elected? Would you be able to reach across the aisle to work with your counterparts in the opposing party? My second question is how do you see American foreign policy toward Cuba and Cuban refugees developing in light of the War on Terror and the Patriot Act in the next 20 years given Castro's age and our inability to capture Osama Bin Laden?
(this is to test your "make a jovial remark about complicated, multi-part questions while you think a way to duck answering any of the questions asked" skill.)
*steps up to the microphone*
These are very interesting and essential questions, but I think the underlying issue is all about monkeys. Specifically I wish to advocate a greater role for monkeys, especially intellingent talking monkeys, in our society.
Just kidding, here are my answers:
I believe the part of our government in most need of reform is the legislature. For far too long the representatives have been more concerned with opposing each other and engaging in pork barrel trading than forming sound policy that Americans need. There is much to disagree about, but I believe there is much more that we agree on as a people, and we would notice it and act on it, if our political climate was not focused on exaggerating our differences.
The unfortunate fact is, it is not the rules of our legislature that bring this problem. I would not even blame our legislators as a group--there are plenty of fine men and women working for us on Captiol Hill. So why does this happen? They behave this way because the voters train them to. It is a rare legislator that can see beyond what their constituents ask for to what they really need--it is rarer still that the voters reward them for it. This must change.
I can do my part by how I respond to bills proposed to me. If it is the product of short-sighted partisan bickering, I will veto it, even if I agree with its goals. If it is a bait-and-switch, promising one thing and delivering another, I will veto it. If it contains extraneous spending or issues that should be voted on their own merits, I will veto it until I am presented with a more concise bill. I will work with Congress before the fact to encourage them to come up with bills that I can sign.
I will be open and informative with the American people when I spot problems--I can't fix all of them with an iron fist--rules and regulations. But I can use my fancy soapbox up here to let you know about it so that you can make better voting decisions. The rest is up to you all.
As for working with my opponents, I will work with anyone acting constructively instead of oppositionally. On almost any issue there is room for consensus, far more room than has ever been utilized.
I would like to improve relations with Cuba, but progress in that direction must be guarded. I firmly believe that to reap the rewards of economic cooperation with the United States, a nation must grow out of its authoritarian history and become a republic run by the people and for the people. I do not intend to give full access to American markets to nations that do not offer fundamental civil liberties such as self-rule to their people.
That said, it is not an on/off switch. Positive action will meet with positive response. I suspect the situation will not significantly change while Castro remains in power. I will be watching the political climate in that country very closely as his time as ruler comes to a close.
I thank you all for bearing with me for this long-winded reply. The question really touched a nerve with me.
