Friday, October 24, 2008

UVA Law Blog Election Endorsements

None of these should come as surprises - but we thought that - after having followed the election for the past, well, 20 months (too damn long, America. We support some system where we just put the candidates on network TV for a little while until we know enough about them to decide, and be done. Also, a national primary, and no more electoral college either), we feel we'd mark up where we stand. Before the election we'll have a longer post about why Obama > McCain, but well wait until the Law Weekly runs its bit.

For the moment though, here's how we think it should go:

President - Barack Obama (D): We've written about this ad nauseum, so a few things will suffice. Boiling it down to the most important issues . . .

Obama is most notable for espousing the logic of withdrawal and long-standing opposition from the beginning of a disastorous, criminal, and absurdly expensive war in Iraq. The illegal war in Iraq is America's largest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, and it is important to remember that, from the beginning, John McCain supported it and Barack Obama opposed it. And, not surprisingly, Obama has a well-defined and internationally supported plan to bring the war to an end, while McCain, as the NYT, infra, points out, still clings to a foggy and distant notion of "victory" as a precondition for withdrawal that could cost the US much more in resources and lives.

Obama has a plan to fix the sputtering economy that - yes - involves increasing government revenue (and decreasing defecit) by raising income taxes on wealthy people to help those indeed; McCain, on the otherhand, is beholden to plutocrats and himself has admitted that he doesn't understand the economics behind his proposed policies, adding that, in the mist of a global crisis, he thought the economy was strong.

Obama - himself the former President of a presitigious law review (almost as well regarded as the Virginia Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law) - has the knowledge and intention of appointing to justices to the Supreme Court that will protect civil liberties, including a women's right to abortion; McCain along with Palin - to the questionable extent that they understand the law at all (the subject of an upcoming post) - will apoint judges who will do the opposite.

Additionally, Obama is light years ahead of McCain on alternative energy and the environment; McCain's "drill baby drill" policy will only exacerbate the energy crisis in which the country currently finds itself, the recent dip in gasoline prices notwithstanding (those high prices will be BACK soon enough people).

Finally, Obama's campaign has maintained the high road in this election; McCain's campaign has not - we think this to be an important indicator of how the candidates will behave in once in office.

For all those reasons and more . . .

Senator - Mark Warner (D): Warner did a fantastic job as Governor of Virginia, helping to clean up the fiscal mess created by his predecessor (and now opponent) Jim Gilmore. Warner showed himself to a smart and adroit executive, a fiscal conserative who got the Commonwealth through difficult times while maintaining a lot of things that make Virginia great (such as the higher educaiton system). As governor, Warner showed his bipartisan appeal by not only getting through a budget that took care of Gilmore's $6 billion shortfall, but also starting new economic intitiatives, creating new jobs, and enacting other programs that revitalized struggling parts of the state. Warner has both the business accumen and an appreciation for fairness that will serve the US Senate well in tough economic times. Plus, he's running against Gilmore, who is, frankly, not a good choice for the Senate given the defecit that he racked up as Governor from 1998-2002, along with other problems.

For all those reasons and more . . .

Congressmen - Tom Perriello (D) - Perriello supports a quick end to the war in Iraq; he also supports a universial health care and a more fair taxation scheme, and has a sensible plan to revitalize the fifth district. He has is a strong supporter of alternative energy sources and the environment. While we find his antipathy toward gun control concerning, we think that this is outweighed by his commitment to postive change in Congress in other ways.

For all those reasons and more . . .

See also: FFJ's Endorsements.

In related news, the New York Times endorsed Obama today as well. Along with that endorsement, they have a cool gaget where you can seee whom the newspaper endorsed in all previous Presidential elections. The last time they endorsed a republican? Eisenhower over Stevenson in 1956 . . .

Anyway, the incipit of the NYT piece says it about as well as anyone could ever hope to:

Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance.

The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.

As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.

Nothing hyperbolic about it - we agree - it really is an easy choice. Vote for Obama.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

man, i am stunned, absolutely stunned by these nominations!

Rule 12 (f) said...

We're mavericks.

Anonymous said...

Yay. The Democratic party managed to find the one nominee capable of winning who is less qualified than Dubya to be President.

Rule 12 (f) said...

5.55, your notion of qualifications is laughable. xoxo.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. 5:55's notion of qualified clearly makes no room for intelligence.

Come to think of it, I cannot imagine what he or she means by "qualified." In what ways was President Bush qualified that Senator Obama is not (I don't mean this as a jab, I am genuinely curious as to what you have in mind)?

Anonymous said...

12f, rather than this obvious post, comment on the fact that LAW FIRMS ARE RESCINDING OFFERS

Rule 12 (f) said...

zOMG, chill baby, we're working on the LAW FIRM RESCINDING OFFER POST. We're only one person (or are we?), and a indolent one at that. . .