You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 6:33 p.m.

Voters need to know where candidates stand on issues important to them

By Letters to the Editor

With the Presidential election less than two weeks away, it is important that we know where the candidates stand on the issues so we can make an informed decision.

In the third Presidential debate, Gov. Mitt Romney surprised many by agreeing with President Barack Obama on his foreign policy and saying that all he wants is peace on earth. This is surprising because it repudiates everything Romney has been saying for the past two years when he was much more hawkish.

It is evident that Romney will say anything to get elected. We need to remember that 17 of Romney’s 24 foreign policy advisors are the same right wing neo-conservatives from the Bush/Cheney administration who led us into war with Iraq. Romney can change his tune as much as he wants, but the facts tell us whom we would be getting were Romney to be elected President. I encourage everyone who wants peace to vote for President Obama and Vice President Biden.

Kitty B. Kahn

Ann Arbor



Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.

Obama needs to be indicted by the American people. Here's the case. Judge for yourselves: *As of Election Day, unemployment is 7.9%, the highest for any incumbent since FDR. *More importantly, the REAL unemployment rate is in the range of 15%…Higher than in most years of the Great Depression. *Unemployment in the black community is 14.3%. *Unemployment and under-employment for college graduates is a staggering 53%. *The Labor Force participation rate for men is the lowest since 1948. *Under Obama food stamp growth is 75% greater than job growth, with a record 46 million Americans now on food stamps. *An unfathomable 11 million Americans are on disability, a number larger than the population of a majority of states. *One sixth of all personal income in the USA comes in the form of a check from the government. *The housing collapse is deeper than the Great Depression. *The net worth of the average American is down 40%. *New business startups are at the lowest level in 30 years. *The U.S. credit rating has been downgraded for first time in history.


Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:26 a.m.

"right wing neo-conservatives" how does this sort of invective get published by Let's talk about Obama and his porno star mother from the '70s who had her son nurse at the teat of criminal communist agitators. You can try to erase this comment but the data is out there already.


Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.

Porno star? Who's ever said that about her? There's plenty in her record to criticize if you don't like left-wing political ideologies, but nothing I've ever read or heard seems to indicate that she was involved in making pornographic films. She actually married the guys she had babies with--she deserves some credit for that, at least. It DOES seem to be widely accepted that she encouraged her son to associate with communists or communist sympathizers, such as Mr. Obama Sr. and Frank Marshall Davis, from childhood, so kittybkahn is wrong in accusing mike of 'believing lies' on that score. Kittybkahn also seems to be a little unclear on the meaning of the term 'facts.' They can't tell the future.


Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:01 p.m.

Sounds like Mike has been believing the lies of Drudge and Limbaugh.


Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:14 a.m.

Why do liberals keep distilling elections to genitalia? Please stop this. There are more important issues at stake.


Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 7:27 a.m.

Wouldn't it be simpler and more effective if we just demanded to know where each candidate stands on honesty and justice for all? This trading of views is being manipulated by both parties: they each select the "issues" which concern people they believe will create the greatest aggregate voting block. One example is the pro-gun rights / anti-gun rights "debate": one party says they'll protect the right to "bear arms" while the other advocates greater control by government. This puts people in the position of either voting for a party which does harmful things for the "price" of protecting ONE right or voting for the party candidate who claims that sacrificing ONE right is all that's needed to "end violence." How about standing up and working to defend ALL OF OUR RIGHTS??! That's what our elected public servants are supposed to be doing (but aren't). I for one don't like having my intelligence insulted. I for one refuse to let any political party or party candidate use extortion on me. I won't give up ANY legitimate rights nor will I trade one of my rights for any "promise" that says they won't sell out other key rights to elitist special interests. Both parties are operating dishonestly and fraudulently and so are all the national candidates: this is why our government and our economy are degrading year by year. Why should we be voting for the least dishonest when we should only be voting for the candidates who're using the best judgment and principles to keep this country moving in a positive direction? Voting for the least of two evils is by definition an extortionist scheme. Let us create and impose a Doctrine of Honesty before we have another absurd clown show like this election.


Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 3:32 a.m.

POSITIONS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES -- PART 2 SOCIAL SECURITY: President Obama wishes to strengthen social security and guarantee solvency indefinitely (which could be done by eliminating the cap on income subject to payroll taxes-sic); Mitt Romney wishes to eventually eliminate Social Security and allow individual investment for retirement using stocks and bonds and other investment tools with the advice and management of Wall Street investment companies; EDUCATION: President Obama wants to strengthen and improve public education and make college education more accessible and less costly; Mitt Romney wants to replace public education with charter schools and return decision-making to parents and the states and would eliminate the Department of Education and reduce Pell Grants and other support for higher education; SUPREME COURT: President Obama would replace retiring justices with candidates similar to Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan; Mitt Romney would replace retiring justices with candidate similar to Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. ECONOMY: President Obama wants to invest in education, infrastructure and energy including renewable energies; Mitt Romney wants to reduce federal government's size and allow states to individually determine how the money saved from down-sizing will be used. The differences between the two candidates are substantial and clear even with Mitt Romney's changing positions and paucity and fluctuation of policy details. Each candidate will take the country in different directions and it is important that every voter knows what will be achieved at the end of each path.


Sat, Nov 3, 2012 : 5:11 a.m.

Please do not deny the facts: Mitt Romney supports reversal of Roe v. Wade which would outlaw abortions except if the life of the mother is at risk; Mitt Romney would sign a "Personhood" bill into law which will outlaw many forms of contraceptives; Planned Parenthood would not exist without federal support and is important in delivering health care to poor women who would otherwise receive no care; Many voters have little confidence in state's ability to provide high quality education. Most Republican controlled states have been significantly reducing financial support for public education as well as the monitoring of student progress. States have disproportionate control over their education systems which is why America is not able to educate its children. Head Start and early childhood education initiatives, proven to improve future student performance, are federal generated programs and not created by the states.

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.

A truly amazing collection of lies. There isn't room to correct all of them, but here's a few. Romney does not want abortion declared illegal, he just wants it to be a state decision, as it should be. Romney does not want contraceptives outlawed, just wants people to pay for it themselves, like any responsible adult should. Romney doesn't want to Planned Barrrenhood, just remove federal money from them. They can stand on their, as they should. But you did get this right: "Mitt Romney wants to reduce federal government's size and allow states to individually determine how the money saved from down-sizing will be used." The federal government has no business being involved in education. Money can be provided, but education decisions made in Washington DC do nothing for school districts and children.


Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 3:09 a.m.

POSITIONS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES -- PART 1 I know President Obama's position on issues but I do not know many of the positions that Mr. Romney has on the issues. Here is what is clear to me about both candidates: ABORTION: President Obama supports Roe v. Wade and the rights of women to obtain legal abortions; Mitt Romney wants Roe v. Wade reversed and abortion declared ill-legal unless the life of the mother is at risk. CONTRACEPTIVES: President Obama believes that contraceptives should be available to all women; Mitt Romney favors a "Personhood" bill that will define a person to exist with conception and thus would outlaw the most popular contraceptives. PLANNED PARENTHOOD: President Obama wants to continue funding for Planned Parenthood which provides significant health care to poor women separate from abortion; Mitt Romney will eliminate Planned Parenthood; DEFENSE BUDGET: The President wants to reduce defense spending while maintaining a strong military in accordance with the Chiefs of Staff recommendations; Mitt Romney wants to increase defense spending beyond the military's recommendations; MEDICARE: President Obama wants to streamline Medicare and reduce its cost by eliminating graft and waste; Mitt Obama wants to eventually replace Medicare with vouchers which will offset PART of the cost of buying private health insurance; many of the benefits in Medicare would not be required of private insurance; (CONTINUED)


Fri, Nov 2, 2012 : 2:33 a.m.

I'd really like to know where they stand on Private Property Rights.