’08 Or Bust: Now Live

-

banner_08orbust.jpg
Citizens for Global Solutions just launched an interactive web tool that TWN readers should find interesting. ’08 Or Bust is a guide to foreign policy in the 2008 presidential elections. It allows users to compare candidates’ direct quotes on some of the most important foreign policy issues with which the next president will have to grapple. Users can contribute quotes, both in text and embedded video format, to the site. Help filling in the blanks is much appreciated.
The coolest feature of the site is the Global Solutions candidate questionnaire. We have aggressively sought out in-depth responses from all candidates to our questions on important global issues. So far, four candidates, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson and Barack Obama, have stated their views for the record. These questionnaires expose some interesting divisions and are well worth a read.
We have spent the past few months trying to get responses from other candidates also. Some campaigns have blown us off, some campaigns are under-resourced and can’t commit the time to doing it, and Mitt Romney’s campaign refuses to answer because their candidate is “constantly developing new policies.”
If a candidate you support (or can’t stand) hasn’t filled out a questionnaire and you would like to publicize his or her views, you can help us get a response.
Over the next month or so, I’ll delve in to some of the more interesting divisions between the candidates who have responded to the questionnaire, issue by issue. For now, enjoy the site.
— Scott Paul

Comments

7 comments on “’08 Or Bust: Now Live

  1. söve says:

    I also meant to come back and correct myself on the cluster bombs…US policy forbids the sales of them if for use on civilian areas. It’s land mines which have been prohibited.

    Reply

  2. Scott Paul says:

    uun:
    I had to delete the last sentence from your comment, which I think crossed the line. I’ve never tinkered with a comment before, but I do want all readers of all religious faiths to feel welcome here. Hope you are ok with that.

    Reply

  3. uun says:

    Romneys campaign actually said he is “constantly developing new policies.”?
    Twenty bucks says he will flipflop and start saying he knows what he wants an will stand by and has always stood by his policies. Then he will bribe some movement bigwigs to agree that Romney`s policies are “steadfast” and “stay the course”.
    Come on Romney give us some one liner policy papers, Peak oil? just torture the Mexican Muslims and everything will be fine!
    Solving inner city crime trough waving a wand and creating tight hetero families?

    Reply

  4. Carroll says:

    Speaking of Dr. Paul, did anyone catch this: http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/mccain-blames-rise-of-hitler-on-ron.html I’m assuming that you and other readers understand that I take issue with different aspects of Paul’s “isolationism” than John McCain does.
    Thanks for the helpful ideas. Hope I didn’t get the discussion off track from ’08 or Bust, but the comment just seemed to flow naturally.
    Posted by Scott Paul at November 30, 2007 03:40 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    BTW….Yes I did see that and posted it on a prior post.
    Paul is not totally my cup of tea..but he is “basic” to how a lot of Americans feel these day.
    I would tell you a funny story about my local fish store and how the owner explained he can’t get local flounder anymore from our home town fishermen and has to buy imported Argentine flounder and how it relates to people’s response to Paul…but it’s way to long.

    Reply

  5. Carroll says:

    Scott,
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
    As I said I think your site and tools are a good idea and will be very useful. I will be checking it regularly for info.
    And you are right there is a way to show any contridictions or differences …we should hunt up “all” the speeches they give to different private groups and not just the ones to the public to see if they jive.
    I also meant to come back and correct myself on the cluster bombs…US policy forbids the sales of them if for use on civilian areas. It’s land mines which have been prohibited. But that sorta makes it worse! They are ignoring our own policy.
    I was trying to find a way to fit what they did on Feinstein’s bill to ban cluster bombs into the candidates statments on some issue but couldn’t find an exact fit with an issue and statement. This is the type of thing though they should have to explain in relation to some of their other statements on torture and human rights.
    Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4882 to H.R. 5631
    Statement of Purpose: To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
    Vote Counts: YEAs 30
    NAYs 70
    Biden (D-DE), Nay
    Dodd (D-CT), Nay
    Clinton (D-NY), Nay
    Obama (D-IL), Yea
    But I will keep trying. LOL

    Reply

  6. Scott Paul says:

    Carroll:
    Interesting ideas. Unfortunately, as a non-partisan organization with a limited mandate, we can’t add everything to the site that I might want as a consumer.
    One of the cool things about the site is it does allow for some hypocrisy exposure. If you see a statement that you think is relevant to one of the topics, submit it to the site and we’ll get it up there (you’ll notice we have more than one quote per issue per candidate). I don’t know if we’ll take roll call votes, but we do have our own tool for that sort of thing, although we only highlight a few votes: http://globalsolutions.org/reportcard
    As for issues, the ones I care about most, with just a few exceptions, are there. Since we’re concerned mostly with global issues, we haven’t featured stuff on bilateral or regional policy with the exception of Iraq. Most of what I want to find out on Iran I can get from the responses to the questionnaire’s section on “use of military force.” As a consumer, I would still want more info on views regarding Israel/Palestine, reform of development policies, stance on Russia, attitude towards democracy promotion, and some other topics. I doubt anyone will find this a comprehensive resource, but I’m pretty proud of it as is.
    Thanks for your thoughts. By the way, I’m still trying to think about how to bring some attention to your comment on my post last week, which I think captures perfectly the energy behind Ron Paul’s candidacy. As I said, I don’t like all aspects of this “backlash,” but I do understand it.
    Speaking of Dr. Paul, did anyone catch this: http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/mccain-blames-rise-of-hitler-on-ron.html I’m assuming that you and other readers understand that I take issue with different aspects of Paul’s “isolationism” than John McCain does.
    Thanks for the helpful ideas. Hope I didn’t get the discussion off track from ’08 or Bust, but the comment just seemed to flow naturally.

    Reply

  7. Carroll says:

    Good idea but looks looks the most pressing Foreign policy issues have been left off the list.
    Went all through it and didn’t see anything on the hot issues of Iran or Israel-Palestine or Cuba. Also the issue of foreign influence lobbying’s effect and US capitalism abroad on our policy was left off and that is a hot topic among the public more so now than ever. Did I just miss it or were these major issues left off for some reason? I compared several and looked under several issues like the ICC and International Law, the UN, Peace and Security, Nuclear issues.
    You really should add these questions as well as their view on what overall US policy toward the ME should be.
    I realize there is not much posted yet but to be effective…if you are really serious about US foreign policy…there needs to be a way to expose/question them where they are showing direct contridictions and moral doublespeak in policy, in particular on issues like nuclear countries and international law.
    For instance where Biden or Dodd or Hillary say they are basically in favor of observing International law or at least of perfecting it from the US view…there should be a “contridiction” column beside their statements where their contridicting statements and actions can be shown…like for instance their stands and statements on the US supplying Israel with cluster bombs that were used on Lebanon which is prohibited by International law and why they did not call for some sanction on Israel for this.
    If the post are just going to be soundbites it isn’t worth much. They will just do more crapola babble and spin unless nailed with the glaringly obvious and made to answer.
    We all need to get tougher. Or ’08 will be a bust.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *