政治学与国际关系论坛

标题: 纽约时报如何盘点共和党候选人 [打印本页]

作者: CampusHR    时间: 2010-12-10 16:45
标题: 纽约时报如何盘点共和党候选人
共和党预选的选择:麦凯恩
     
    我们与所有竞选总统的共和党人候选人意见极为相左。主要候选人均没有让美军撤出伊拉克的方案。他们还在支持布什已经被批得体无完肤的经济理论决裂,而且目前依然不能与布什遗产表示决裂。我们也坚决不同意他们对所谓信得过的最高法院法官应该具备的条件。

     
    不过,我们仍然需要作出一个选择。作出这个选择十分容易。亚利桑那州的参议员约翰.麦凯恩是唯一一位承诺结束布什总统代表并依赖一小撮愤怒的的共和党人执政风格。他在两党合作制定法律方面成绩有目共睹,会比任何一位其他共和党候选人为更多的美国人提供选择。
     
    因为事实证明麦凯恩是一个坚守立场的人,因于他偶尔的、工于心计地迎合右翼会让我们感到不寒而栗。他较早提出了与全球气候变暖作斗争;在移民政策上,他冒着输掉总统选举的风险坚持基本的美国价值;在那些迫不及待地要做武装部队总司令的人里,麦凯恩是真正的战斗英雄,但他却满怀深情地说,一个处于最坏境地的国家如何对待它的囚犯更能体现这个国家的品质。
     
    作为一家以纽约为基础的报纸,为什么我们不支持鲁道夫·朱利安尼?他在纽约市长的第一任期内,证明一个肮脏、危险、似乎不可治理的城市可以变得干净、安全和井井有条,我们于1997年支持他再次当选。当“911"事件发生时,其他人,包括布什总统,都逃之夭夭,而朱利安尼却临危不惧。现在我们为什么不选择他呢?   
     
    这个人不是在竞选总统。
     
    许多纽约人真正的了解朱利安尼是一个心胸狭隘、深藏不露、睚眦必报的人。他认为不需制约警力。如同重建后的时代广场一样,极端的种族主义政策也是他任期的一个遗产。
     
    朱利安尼的傲慢和判断力的错误令人惊叹。当他声称紧缩开支时,我们记得他如何超额挥霍,对必定会出现的财政下滑视若无睹,把大量的赤字留给其继任者。因为他无法忍受布拉顿与他分享公众的关注,他解雇了使犯罪率下降的警察局长威廉·布拉顿。他把这个职位给了布纳德·凯瑞克,而这个人现在被控欺诈和受贿。
     
    2008年的朱力安尼是一个不知廉耻地把911的恐怖变成赚钱的机会的人,有一个他不愿意公诸于众的客户名单,还是一个用纽约市和这个国家的恶梦去推动自己的总统竞选的人。
     
    其他的候选人都不是更好的选择。
     
    罗姆尼的嬗变能与朱利安尼先生的逢场作戏媲美。自从他离开马塞诸萨州州长的位置,我们都很难发现在哪一件事上他没有把自己重新摆放到右翼。我们很难判断他的立场,很难确定他将会把这个国家带向何方。
     
    麦克·赫卡比,阿肯色州的前州长,是一个和蔼可亲、让人宽心的浸信会牧师,张口闭口都是一种更为温和的基督教保守主义。但是他的政策却让我们看到他的真实面目。在预选中,为了吸引共和党的选民,他变成了一个反对移民的绝对论者。他在竞选中大谈宗教,迫使罗姆尼捍卫他的【摩门】信仰。这使得他没有资格进入椭圆办公室。
     
    麦凯恩是最早几个指出对伊战争指挥失误的著名的共和党人之一。我们希望他现在能看到布什在伊拉克增兵后暂时的胜利并不能持久,更不能改变伊拉克杀人越货的政治氛围。他至少需要向选民描述他将如何打赢这场他说他稳操胜算的战争。我们不同意他在堕胎和同性婚姻问题上所持的立场。

    然而,在2006年,麦凯恩先生为了囚犯的人道待遇和禁止酷刑挺身而出。我们当时就说,他被布什涮了,因为布什不会遵循这些原则。但是,麦凯恩先生表明了自己的态度,正如他很早就意识到全球气候变暖的威胁。他坚定地提倡竞选经费改革,并与立场最为自由的民主党人之一——参议员鲁斯.费恩高德一起为立法而呼吁,正如他曾经与参议院爱德华·肯尼迪一起为移民改革而奋斗一样。
     
    这些并没有使他成为一个温和的共和党人,但却使他成为共和党中最好的总统候选人。

本站对美国2008年大选的特别报道:

    追踪美国大选(I)1月21日至2月7日、追踪美国大选(II)2月7日-2月29日“美国总统、总统选举和政党政治”、关中人:开场即惊心动魄的2008年美国大选 、斯坦福大学研究员:巴拉克·奥巴马有魅力没“理念” 、 关中人:911改变美国青年 美国青年改变美国政治、让奥巴马迈向白宫的演讲:希望就是勇气,希望就是力量 、巴拉克·奥巴马:今晚,此刻,我们相信、关中人:猜测奥巴马的中国政策、亚裔人支持克林顿 媒体影射其种族歧视、吕芳:从08大选看美国社会的族群***、纽约时报如何点评民主党候选人。

英文原文:
Primary Choices: John McCain (New York Times Editorial,January 25, 2008)
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.
Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?
That man is not running for president.
The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.
Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.
The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.
The other candidates offer no better choices.
Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is an affable, reassuring Baptist minister who talks about a softer Christian conservativism. His policies tell the real story. To attract Republican primary voters, he has become an anti-immigrant absolutist. His insertion of religion into the race, herding Mr. Romney into a defense of his beliefs, disqualified him for the Oval Office.
Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.
In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.
That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.




欢迎光临 政治学与国际关系论坛 (http://bbs.newslist.com.cn/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2