The race for the U.S. presidency is at its highest point and is an unpredictable outcome. Either can win and is likely to be defined at the polls in the last minute. It is a very interesting process and affects the whole world because it is the presidential election the most powerful country in the world.
For those who are foreign nationals or independents who was not ranked by any party and therefore has no loyalties pre purchased, this vote is a dilemma that requires careful analysis to ascertain the position of each of the candidates and power and consciously exercise this right.
The first impulse you have is to vote with their eyes closed for whatever Democratic candidate because the Republican administration of GW Bush has been very unfortunate for this country. Bush led the U.S. to a costly war in lives and economic resources, with arguments and misleading premises, policies undermined the U.S. international image and left the country close to financial collapse, the largest after the depression of the 30's. Republican This dismal performance is a winner for the Democratic nominee and one might think that it should not make a great effort to succeed.
However, besides this advantage, the charisma and image of the Democrat and enormous financial resources you have your campaign, the polls do not show it as a clear winner in a few weeks of the presidential election. In recent days, after the first debate, some pollsters give him an advantage with a little more comfortable, but still far from decisive. First
conscious voters who do, is look at the philosophy and basic principles of the games and both correspond to its own principles. In some ways a country of strong democratic institutions and great tradition, the party platform should be more important than the qualities or defects of the candidates in a presidential election. But in this case this does not seem so clear.
Political parties have some important differences in moral principles. Democrats more liberal, defending the right of women to decide on abortion, support the use of mothers for research cedulas medical, and defends the right of homosexuals to marry. This compared to Republicans who defend at all costs the right to life and prohibit the use of cedulas mothers and only accepts a marriage between opposite sexes to preserve the traditional essence of the family. However, both parties are deeply religious and affection to their churches and pastors of Christian origin.
These moral factors, although they are discussed and confronted during the campaign, at the time of the vote only affect a minority of the population, since most citizens are more interested in the affairs of everyday life and economic problems.
In the economic field the difference key is related to the degree of freedom to leave on the economic laws of supply and demand, with the level of state intervention in private activities and the issue of free trade. In this the Democrats are more protectionist, strongly question the free trade unions and protect workers, and prefer a government more involved in the regulation of private activities, or more bureaucracy. This leads them to be prone to high taxes. Unlike Republicans prefer a small state structure, free trade, low taxes and let labor relations are governed by supply and demand and the forces of capitalism are those that define economic relations between people.
In the field of immigration, both parties recognize that this is a country of immigrants and that ultimately this process is beneficial to the economy. But the parties have many inconsistencies in the management of immigration policies. Democrats on the one hand they want to protect immigrants and facilitate their legalization, but on the other hand have the pressure from the unions to avoid getting new people to compete for their jobs. The Republicans want an abundance of labor to the law of supply and demand to operate and also to stimulate growth. But are afraid to legalize those who are illegal or that there amnesty, which runs counter to its principles. Besides each other feel attacked and humiliated by the way immigrants cross the border and make fun of their security systems.
In the field of national security and relations with other communities around the world and the role of great power, both parties seek at all costs to maintain U.S. preeminence in the world, although they differ in their actions. Republicans are more friends to the imposition, threat and use of force and the Democrats of dialogue and international cooperation. But both are willing to start a war and use the invasion as a defense.
During the campaign these principles are not contained in a transparent and are often used to rigging the circumstances. The reality is that both candidates, their election promises are far from the extremes of both in a case of the left or the other on the right and approach center solutions, an area where they can win votes of the undecided and this makes Both proposals are close, at least in substance and only differ in the details of implementation.
Basically the contest is taking place in show small differences between them, looking for votes based on these differences. No real change. There is a new way of doing politics or lead the country. Is the establishment who defines to where the candidate may differ and leaves little room for action.
For example, both agree to a favorable immigration law and the legalization of the so-called illegal as long as they protect the borders first.
both want access to universal health insurance, the one finding the direct action of state and another giving subsidies to the private sector is the one to do it, but neither looks at the root of the problem. No one speaks of abuse by hospitals, doctors, companies providing health insurance and the companies producing medicines and health supplies. Neither touches the problem of lack of doctors and nurses, the possibility to stop importing drugs from neighboring countries much cheaper, to limit or regulate the lawsuits to doctors and hospitals for malpractice cases, right of patients and families, but has been distorted by the abuse of unscrupulous lawyers who have made this a big deal, affecting tremendously the cost of insurance and thus the practice of medicine.
Basically any of the two look at the real reasons why the medicine in the U.S. is the most expensive in the world and one of the less developed countries with health insurance coverage for its citizens.
When stranded in a discussion about the war in Iraq both believe to be dating honor and not defeat and although Obama is committed to give a timeframe for withdrawal, makes clear that this can not be hasty or irresponsible. Both believe that we should strengthen the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. The only thing that differ slightly in international politics, is that Obama is more open to an unconditional dialogue with countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea, but recently has been slowly changing its position.
The tax issue is a significant difference regarding Obama wants to raise the tax on high income people and McCain does not want to, but spread out the cuts set by the Bush administration. But it has not so far been a central theme campaign.
As for energy dependence and the environment, both broadly in line. MaCain more emphasis on new drilling and oil exploration in the territory of the United States and proposes to give a big boost to nuclear energy, but also believes and is willing to support the research and development of unconventional energy. Obama in turn puts more emphasis on these, but agrees with the push for nuclear energy and recognizes the need for oil and fossil fuels for years and has proposed using federal oil reserves to relieve the pressure momentarily high prices. Both emphasize the urgent need that the U.S. has to achieve energy independence and not rely on oil supplies from unfriendly governments.
The broad agreement in many of approaches and little differentiation in the positions on some issues, leads us to believe that people ultimately vote undecided guided more by the perception that the formation of the candidate, his character and personality, by the image that displays in his public appearances and the confidence it inspires in his ability to lead the country.
And in this I sense that Senator McCain is ahead. His seniority in the management of international conflicts, their firm positions although unpopular over the Iraq war, which eventually proved him right, his position in handling sensitive issues before the members of his own party, have given an image as a statesman and being a candidate who is ready to lead the country with confidence.
And one more note to reinforce this perception. Senator McCain is clear that we must be loyal to his friends. Senator McCain knows that Colombia is a great friend and ally of the U.S., knows the effort that the country is doing to be stripped of so many years of violence and recognizes that there is a ruling class and struggling to do business.
Senator McCain is willing to help without preconditions, his best friend.
Senator Obama, but is willing to dialogue without preconditions with countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, unfriendly and hostile to the American Union is not willing to support the FTA with the best friend of the U.S. in Latin America, Colombia , until certain conditions are met safety.
Senator Obama if you put preconditions to hold your best friend.
What a difference! Jorge Pineda
Miami, FL 9-30-08
