The Great Energion Political Debate – Answers to Question 2

As I thought likely, one thing that will separate our participants is the choice of which issues are of most importance.
Elgin Hushbeck’s answer: The Big Three
Bob Cornwall’s answer: 3 issues: Income disparity; Immigration; Health Care. Hard choices.
 

4 Responses

  • Henry, I appreciate the opportunity to lay out the important issues facing the nation at every level of governance. I’ve attempted to lay out three issues that stand at the forefront, but there are many others that demand our attention. Context sometimes determines what stands at the top of the list.
    I must say that I was thoroughly disappointed in the tenor of Elgin’s response to the question. Rather than laying out issues and showing why they are important he simply used this forum as an opportunity to make unnecessary and in my mind rather bizarre attacks on the President and the Democratic Party. I could engage in tit-for-tat as I’m a supporter of President Obama and am personally offended by the remarks there, but this is his right. I’m just not sure that having a conversation that goes off in this direction is helpful.

  • Bob, I read your comments, but given that you did not list any actual specifics but instead just used a vague charge of “bizarre” and said you were “personally offended,” I am not really clear what problem you saw. I can assure you that nothing in my post was directed at you personally, or even at Democrats in general, but at “Democrats in office,” particularly in Washington.
    More important, even if I am wrong about the issues I raised, there is nothing in my three items that are not pretty main stream views within conservatism, and form the foundation to the opposition to Obama’s reelection. If you disagree, there is no reason to take offense at such statements, but to refute them. Note that I did not just make vague unsubstantiated charges, but gave specific examples, as space allowed, that I believe support the three issues I laid out.
    I note that you used the term “bizarre” (something BTW, I did not take offense at) and this causes me to wonder if perhaps some of these were new to you. For example, while the basic facts surrounding Fast and Furious have been fairly well known among conservatives for several years, it has been almost completely ignored by the mainstream media. As such, I frequently run into people for whom Fast and Furious is only a movie. Thus, if you are not familiar with this information, then perhaps the mention of the unwarranted use of Executive Privilege by Obama might be seen as coming out of blue and thus bizarre. But since you did not given any specifics, it is hard to really say. Is it that you have not heard of Obama doing “recess appointments” while the Senate was not in recess, or is it that you have heard but have some other rational to justify this? Or perhaps it was something else. Since you did not say, I cannot know. But either way this would be a reason for further dialogue, not a reason to withdraw.
    People complain about that tone of the discussion, but real discussion will have disagreement. In political discussion, that means that there will be reasons for and reasons against each candidate. At times this will call into question someone’s actions or inactions while in office, which is all I did. If reasonable people cannot have such honest and open discussion then how can we complain about the discussion that we are left with?
    In any event, I would hope you reconsider. If nothing else, after weeks of debate, we would end with a better understanding of each other’s position. While I do not expect to “convert” you into a Romney supporter, perhaps you would come to an understanding of my views, and I of yours, such that our views would not seem so bizarre to each other. I think that that this would, in and of itself, be beneficial. In addition, hopefully we would attract a readership, from both sides, that would also learn and benefit from the discussion.
    My reply to your issues was already written and is set to show up on my blog a 6:00 AM EST tomorrow morning. Hopefully I will see a reply from you addressing, or at least questioning, the points I made in the near future.
    Elgin

  • Elgin, the issue is the over-the-top statements about the President and Democrats in office. IWhat I read there were in my mind charges that the President is a criminal or engaging in criminal behavior or moving in a totalitarian direction. That the President used recess appointments when GOP senators have been using pocket vetoes to keep appointees from being taken up led to this decision. But I don’t think that these are the big issues of the day. President Bush also used tools at hand, many of which I disagreed with.
    But, I simply don’t want to go down this path of arguing about the character of the candidates. If you want to stick to real issues, fine. If not, then we’ll need to end this.

  • Here is a statement from the one presidential candidate who actively supports the legalization of medical marijuana nationwide! “[T]here is very little evidence that smoking marijuana as a means of taking it represents a significant health risk. Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. I suspect that a day’s breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day’s dose — which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint — of marijuana.”You can read more and support her campaign on her site http://denisebedio.com/marijuana. Join us and together, we can create a true land of the free.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.