AMERICAN VALUES

American Values, L.A. readers

Who you like in the 2008 presidential campaign.
January 2, 2008

» Discuss Article    (6 Comments)

As the Los Angeles Times editorial board wraps up its series on American Values in the 2008 presidential campaign, we've asked readers for their own endorsements and ideas on the campaign. The readers' response, ranging from calls for experience and hope to critiques of the Times' bias to exuberant calls to Go Ron Paul, has been gratifying. Below you'll find the first blast of reactions.

If you haven't already piped up, you can email us at
opinionla@latimes.com, comment in the discussion boards for any of our election-related articles (including this one) or contact us the old-fashioned way with a letter to the editor. You can also leave a thought in the comments at the Opinion L.A. blog, where we will also be keeping track of ideas on the 2008 campaign you continue to send us.

Look for the Times to choose a Republican and a Democratic candidate in the coming weeks, and to pick a final nominee once the party conventions are over. We'll also be posting updated election-related articles, opinions, multimedia and factoids at our endorsements section latimes.com/values08. We look forward to hearing from you as the longest campaign season on record rolls on throughout the year.


Your picks for president


Much of western Europe already looks at us as a bit naive due to our loving embrace of religion. The election of a President who does not accept evolution as fact would make us a laughing-stock in much of the educated world.

Ray Hemphill Burbank




I have read your series on American Values and other items regarding the next election; I have listened to parts of debates; and I have asked myself what, if anything, is the current administration doing wrong. All of these have gone into my attempt to decide where to place my vote in a little over a month's time. Although in general I share much of the Times world-view I must note that I do disagree in several areas. But I do believe that the major stand that "my" candidate should take is regarding government regulation.

The Bush administration and seemingly the Republican Party as a whole has been systematically dismantling our regulatory system. We face the destruction of the natural habitat, because the Bush administration attacks any defense thereof. Unions cannot effectively lobby for appropriate workplace protections and appropriate levels of training and pay, because the administration is so supportive of any regulation that restricts business. We allow unrestricted mistreatment of foreign "fighters" and their unauthorized imprisonment, although this is directly counter to the whole basis of our constitution. Even the courts are now ruling that regulation is restrictive of good business. All this must stop, as sensible regulation is good for the country and good for business. The charges of "nanny-government" are more than offset by the failure of regulators to protect where no one else can.

Who, then, will best champion this view? In my mind the answer is neither of the two front running Democrats or any Republican. The two front runners on the Democratic side seem to willing to compromise with business interests to the detriment of the whole. The Republicans never saw a regulation they were willing to enforce if business objected. The electable (unfortunately I must consider that) of the candidates that I believe would go the furthest in this area (without becoming a nanny) is John Edwards.

Edwards is the only candidate talking about the needs of the working man for unions. He is also the candidate who fought big business excesses. I also believe he comes closest of the major candidates in providing the type of leadership which will once again restore protection of our national landscape.

Admittedly, we do have differences of opinion, as I admit to having with the L.A. Times, but to my mind his direction in most areas is the most rational, sensible and worthy of a vote.

Leon C. Bennett Whittier




My husband and I support John Edwards for President of the United States. We will be voting for him because he is the only candidate who realizes that corporate influences over government are the biggest threats to our democracy.

Virginia and Reed Tibbetts Tustin




I cast my vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has the temperament, intelligence, experience, and judgment that will enable her to be an effective president who will serve all of the people and who will work to restore our nation's credibility and reputation abroad. I want to thank you for the "American Values" series.

Gary Nagy Gardena




In response to your invitation, I am supporting John Edwards. I think his message--that government has become the pawn and protector of big business at the expense of the citizenry it was hired to represent--is valid. But I'd also like to say that I might be endorsing Joe Biden, who is more experienced than Clinton who is running on her experience, except that I'm sure he won't be on the ballot by the time the primary reaches Connecticut. And that's too bad. Most of the mainstream media covers only the top three candidates (per the latest polls) rather than affording all the candidates equal time. By highlighting only the presumptive contenders, the choice each American gets is diluted. Of course most of the media is owned by big business these days, adding some legitimacy to Mr. Edwards claims.

Gretchen Adamek East Hartford, CT




Principled Paul, protecting Peter


Painful experience has taught Americans to expect hypocrisy from politicians, who compete primarily (and all-too entrepreneurially) by offering to rob Peter to pay Paul. That is why a politician who consistently follows principle merits support from citizens, but attracts abuse from the backers and machines of others seeking votes.





Post Comment

Name
Enter your comments and post to forum
By participating you agree to our Terms of Service and represent that you are not under the age of 13.
 
Discussion


Who's your presidential pick, and why? Tell us your take on 'L.A. readers.'

Comments will close after two weeks.
 
1. In Richardson, I see an intellectually mature man. The N.H. TV debate showed me Ban-Abortionists, including Ron Paul, behaving as if churches OWN all pregnant women. Richardson knows what women know, that it's torture to be forced to complete an unplanned conception. As for men suffering "post-abortion-regret" what bIgamist or brothel client wants a baby for his wife to know about? He didn'T say it but Richardson probably knows proflifers think every baby is a potential tither and church benefactor if it can be baptized. Just once. I'd love to hear a Prolife preacher say "Don't abort a potential tither--I NEED THE MONEY." MONEY,"
Submitted by: Confident maturity
7:23 PM PST, Jan 7, 2008
 
2. Richardson has my voe after he said he changed his mind about JFK appointee Jusiice White, afer "Whizzer" said he was against Roe v Wade. All candidates mention creating jobs, etc. but he sees the tie between compulsory parenthood and poverty and cheap labor, etc. Roe v Wade is not about "privacy." It is about liberating pregnant women to move about, TO TRAVEL AS THEY PLEASE and not be cooped up like all Muslim women who can't go anywhere without a male relative. If Supreme Court judges try to dump Roe v Wade, they can be impleached for banning freedom of movement to pregnant women.
Submitted by: RICHARDSON
6:52 PM PST, Jan 7, 2008
 
3. I'm for Hillary, despite the fact that she and Bill are now "old" establishment vs. new when he first ran. Not because she's a woman either -- the feminist-era shrillness/ anger she's got is a negative. But because she's not making promises she can't keep unlike Obama and Edwards who want to be all things to all people, play the popuilist card and are naive in foreign affairs -- giving enemy a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, soft on enforcing immigration (pandering to the illegals/Hispanic vote, then saying something else in Iowa) --Hillary, Biden,Dodd McCain, Giuliani and Richardson = most knowledgeable but she's most in middle.
Submitted by: susan
5:44 PM PST, Jan 7, 2008
 




Demolishing iconic buildings not only destroys history, it wastes resources.

   
The best in Southern California opinion journalism
Letters Top Five
Each week, your Letters Maven receives thousands of e-mails, dozens of letters...
more
The business and culture of our digital lives, from the L.A. Times
Time Warner Cable shows customers how to get TV for free
Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt has been an outspoken critic of the networks'...
more
 

ADVERTISEMENT



Dave, "SNL," Jay, Colbert, Conan and more summarize current events.