If You Were President, Where Would You Stand on These Issues?

A recent Associated Content article by Carol Gilbert was based on a web survey at positivepress.com. The survey consists of 12 statements. The outcome is supposed to tell you which presidential hopeful aligns with your views on the issues.

Web surveys and their accuracy aside, the quiz stirred my juices. The glitz of politics over-shadows the issues. Name recognition and advertising money go much further than the candidate's stand on the issues. Politicians can dance around the issues in a 45 minute speech and people still will vote for them.

Hillary Clinton's speech in Selma, Alabama a few months ago comes to mind. She spent a lot of time pandering. Not once did she hit on one substantive issue. Her attempt to relate to the crowd via a poor rendition of a southern accent was the highlight of her babbling. Yet, she is considered a front-runner.

But I didn't write this to Hillary-bash. This article is about the issues. If we had a succinct score card of the candidates and where they fall on the issues, how would that change our perception? In our media-shaped culture, could we cut through the gloss and vote for the meat?

Let's take a look at the survey. The choices for your answers are "Yes," "No," or "My vote will be based to a large extent on the candidate's position on this issue." The last one is a crutch for those who would be swayed by gloss. The whole point is to see how your views line up with the candidates. You have to have an opinion first. I only answered yes or no because I actually have an opinion.

Here's how it went. Enter the frightening world that would be if I were president.

1. We should continue in this war until Iraq is a stable democracy.
Yes. The real question is how do you define "stable"? Personally, I think we're closer to that goal than the daily death count would lead us to believe. The fact that we are building schools and infrastructure in Iraq goes unreported on the media death watch. The last big hurdle is to train a decent Iraqi police force. Once they prove they have the will to police their own, we can start pulling out.

2. Efforts to combat global warming should be increased.
No. I recently saw an interesting video that makes a compelling argument for taking action on this topic. Those who study global climate change have a vested interest in reporting that it is a problem that needs more federal grants. Where do those grants go? To those who have a vested interest in studying global climate change. That's the real problem.

Here's my argument: Animals we eat never go extinct. There is no shortage of cows or chickens because they are so tasty. If we ate polar bears and penguins, we would be all about protecting them. Take polar bears off the endangered species list and the problem would be solved. I hear penguin taste like chicken.

3. The federal government should provide a universal health care system.
No. Government is pretty bad at doing anything right. Don't believe me? How's that Social Security thing working out? There are many attractive aspects to socialized medicine, but the bureaucratic nightmare would far out-weigh the benefits. When I'm sick, I want a doctor not a politician.

Let's try this instead: Put doctors on retainer to keep you well. This cuts out the evil insurance companies that control the health care system. You pay a "wellness premium" each month to your doctor. If you get sick, the doctor covers all the expenses of getting you well again. Sure there would need to be some laws around this, but at least the government wouldn't be in my medical records.

4. Same-sex marriage should be banned.
No. It's not legal in most states now. Why ban something that is already illegal? Leave this one to the states. Better yet, mind your own business. I guess if you're out protesting military funerals with signs that read, "God hates fags," this is a hot button issue for you. If that is you, I hate to be the one to tell you that you are a vocal minority. Most people don't care if you're gay unless you're one of the militant gays. Those people are just as creepy as the Westboro wackos.

5. The civil law should be reformed so that lawsuits are less common and damage verdicts against individuals and businesses are lower.
No. This is just big business trying to protect its purse. Let the justice system do its job. By limiting damages, we open businesses up to irresponsible practices. If you enjoy the protection from responsibility that is the corporation, you need some check-and-balance. Fear of bankruptcy is that balance. The constitution relies on trial by jury as the keystone of our justice system. People judging their peers is fundemental to our society.

6. The U.S. should increase foreign aid.
No. Though foreign aid makes up a very small part of the federal budget, it galls most people to see money going overseas when there are so many problems within our own borders. Foreign aid has its place, but increased spending isn't the answer. Putting it where it will do the most good is what is needed. Stop propping-up dictators and spend it on fighting disease and hunger.

7. Murderers should face the death penalty.
No. There is no direct correlation between the death penalty and crime. This almost makes me want to change my answer to number 5, but most criminals don't consider the consequences when committing crimes that carry the death penalty. Let me delay further discussion until we get to number 11.

8. The government should stop subsidizing farmers.
No. I'm a big proponent of the free market, but as long as other countries subsidize farming, the U.S. must. It's a horrible catch-22, but until we reach the state of enlightenment where food is free to all, we have to compete. Not that I think we'll ever be that enlightened.

9. Before the social security system runs out of money, we should increase social security taxes to maintain benefits.
No. Can it. Change it. Put the money back in the hands of the earner. Give the citizen control over their retirement. There needs to be some mandatory deduction so the average idiot wouldn't blow it all on meth, but at least give those of us with average intelligence control over the investing.

10. The federal government should be able to hold a suspected terrorist indefinitely without charging them with a crime.
No. This one was very poorly worded. Is the suspect a U.S. citizen? Then no. Is the suspect a captured enemy combatant? That's a different set of rules. I had to go with "No" on this one because I like the Bill of Rights.

11. The War on Drugs is a failure and should be curtailed.
Yes. Oh, my loving cheese, "Yes!" Make it all legal. Tax it. Let Darwin deal with the rest. Here's where number 7 ties in: Stop putting petty drug offenders in prison and free up all that space for the violent criminals. Now you don't need the death penalty because there is plenty of room for those miscreants to rot for all of their days.

While we're at it, make prescription drugs available over-the-counter. Let the market determine the price and watch the drug companies deal with the reality that their ED pill isn't worth 25 dollars a pop. Maybe they'd get back to actually curing a disease rather than just treating symptoms and creating silly niche markets for horny, old geezers.

12. America should take stronger and more consistent measures against the presence of illegal immigrants in the United States.
Yes. This is one area that the constitution clearly puts on the shoulders of the federal government. Get the border under control. If something isn't done soon, those Canadians will steal our cheese and we'll all be speaking French.

Try it. You'll like it.
After I took the quiz, my wife took a shot at it. We diverged at question 1. We diverged again at number 2. We really didn't see eye-to-eye on most of the answers. Remind me not to give her a ride to the polls.

You can take the quiz and see the results for yourself. If you were president where would you stand on the issues? If you cut through the gloss, which candidate gets your vote?