Despite what many say, Mary Rodriguez and Katrina Bullard are both real-world people. However, unlike her opponent, Rodriguez has valuable experience in government activities, while Bullard has none whatsoever. Mary Rodriguez clearly is the more qualified and the more prepared candidate to hold this chair in office.
Rodriguez will represent all Nebraska citizens of her district. She has been in office because she has a passion for government and wants to have an active role in making Nebraska a better place--not because she woke up one day, decided that she didn't like the current government and decided to run for Congress.
There has been much talk about Mary Rodriguez’s opinion on the abortion issue. She is pro-choice—not Pro-Abortion. Mary Rodriguez realizes that the world is not a black-and-white, right-and-wrong sort of place. She will not force all to adhere to the standards of the few, and she will fight to preserve the constitutional rights of all American citizens. On the other hand, Bullard has stated her views on abortion as being pro-life, but she supports capital punishment. Who are we to judge whether a crime is worthy of killing someone, especially when nothing productive comes out of it?--and it doesn't even save tax payers money. It is not our right to pass judgment on others.
When asked about welfare, Katrina Bullard replied that giving money to others should be more personal. Personally, if my children were starving I wouldn't let my pride get in the way of feeding them. For the rebuttal, Rodriguez stated that it "it is not a Christmas gift, it is food money for starving. Charity is not implemented in American society for the rich to feel better about themselves. It is to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves." The pros of welfare immensely outweigh the cons. We need to let her views echo throughout America.
At the debate Katrina Bullard gave a little bit of lip. When asked about her views on pornography she responded with "I don't understand what this has anything to do with Congress..." Considering the fact that she didn't even know what she was rambling about, I think she had bigger issues to worry about than the relevance of the question--such as her answer. She was making things up left and right while not taking a stance on one side or the other. First, she stated pornography had no place in America, then she said "If you want to make your own [videos], do it yourself but don't access it to everyone in the public, it is for yourself." Rodriguez replied with “What you said totally contradicted yourself…I do believe the bedrooms of American citizens are in America.”
Many are confused now. Does she believe pornography is okay in America, or isn't it? It seems she took a very liberal stance on that subject which may concern some Conservatives.
What else will she flip-flop on?
3 comments:
Instead of spending all of the article bashing Bullard I think it would have been more effective to show what Mary Rodriguez believes on more issues. The entire thing is about Bullard said this and Bullard said that and it was wrong and she didn't know what she was saying. If there would have been more of what Rodriguez thinks I and why the article would have been more persuasive. There needs to be a balance of why not to vote for Bullard but also why Rodriguez would be a better candidate.
Honestly, I don't see how you can be Pro-Choice, but not Pro-Abortion. You either support abortion or you don't, there's no in between. Yes, you may say that YOU yourself would not have an abortion, but if you are saying that others should be allowed to murder innocent humans, or soon-to-be humans, then you ARE in fact Pro-Abortion.
As for the death penalty, you say we shouldn't be allowed to choose who lives or dies? What is abortion doing? Making the descision to take away a life, an INNOCENT life on top of that. So how can you be okay with abortion, but say the death penalty is wrong? That does not make much sense to me.
On the topic of welfare. Why should we be giving our hard earned dollars to people who are "less fortunate." The government shouldn't be able to decide who we give our money to, just because they think they aren't well to do. I don't think that it's wrong because we aren't giving charity (in a sense), I think it's wrong because you're taking money away from hard-working Americans and giving it to other Americans who may not apply themselves (not all of them are lazy, but indeed some are).
I think this is a great article. I don't agree with Emily-I think that this article showed well Ms. Rodriguez's beliefs and how they compare to Baullards'. Also, to parsley, if it were called pro-abortion, then perhaps Rodriguez would not support it, but it is in fact called pro-CHOICE, meaning you give the mother the choice of an abortion.
Post a Comment