Ron Paul Report
[In fairness to my wife, whose name is still on this blog even though it's become almost exclusively mine, she is not as sold on Ron Paul as I am. Not terribly important in the grand scheme of things, I suppose, but I heard her talking to someone about Dr. Paul and heard significant skepticism, so I felt it best to add this comment. -- Liam
Today, Janet and I took the kids and went to meet Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, and I have to say I was happily impressed, although I fear he doesn't have much chance to win. He has a rabid, active support base, but it's small. If dedication to candidate carried the day, he might well win in a landslide, but it's total number of votes, and I'm not sure his message is reaching the masses.
Here's the scoop: He seemed generally impassioned about his ideals, which is a refreshing change from a number of other candidates I've seen (such as Rudy "vote for me, or I'll say 9/11 again!" Giuliani, Barack "Vote for me, because I'm new and refreshing" Obama and most of the rest). I like a lot of his message about returning to Constitutional freedoms and behaviors, getting back to the balance of power the Constitution specifies, returning to the states the power that belongs there and returning to the people the liberties we're supposed to have.
Now the bad... he includes in his standard information some things I strongly believe in, such as the above list, and some things which I think are ludicrous, like the regularly asserted and disproved idea that someone wants to build a "NAFTA super-highway" connecting Mexico, the US and Canada with no borders or checkpoints, or the idea that the U.N. is planning to start levying taxes on US citizens. Such items are merely scare tactics, and show that he's either not above trying to whip a crowd into a frenzy through fear mongering OR that he's not smart enough to recognize the true threats from those made up by OTHERS as fear mongering.
Still, I think this country needs about four years of someone like Ron Paul to rebalance the country and return some of the civil liberties and the imperial power which have been usurped by Presidents in my life time (and especially in the last six and a half years). My gut sense is that in four years it'll be time to switch horses, some of Paul's convictions go too far (such as completely withdrawing from the world in the form of severing our ties to the UN, the ICC, NAFTA and NATO), but I definitely think four years of returning checks and balances, civil liberties and balanced budgets are worth some of the excesses, and I think it unlikely that he'd be able to get to some of the more extreme items on his agenda until after he'd taken care of the more important and main-stream ones.
All in all, if Ron Paul makes it past the primary, as of this point in the election cycle he's got my vote.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 10/23/2007 05:27:00 PM
6 Comments:
Thanks for adding the disclaimer. But along those lines, is Janet favoring any particular candidate as yet? Or disliking any with particular vengeance?
I admit it, I am basically a true blue Democrat. I don't have a good articulate reason for it except that I tend to favor the Democratic platforms. (Or is it I don't trust the Republicans?) Well, whatever it is, I tend not to look at the Republican candidates with more than a glance. But to be fair, I've not been looking much at either Party right now. Maybe it's because I know it's going to be a long political road, I don't want to reach burnout too soon. Let it all shake down a little and THEN I'll pay more attention.
I favor Edwards most (and no, it's not because he has good hair). I do favor Clinton some, but I think that despite the current polls, I think she would be trounced in a final election if she were to get the Democratic nomination. And Barack is too inexperienced and even more likely to be trounced in a final election.
.... My two cents (not adjusted for inflation)
Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:46:00 PM
Before seeing Ron Paul, Janet and I were both leaning towards John Edwards. We've both been underwhelmed by Obama (we've been to see him), and we both feel that while there are some real life reasons why Hillary (as a woman candidate) has to come across as more hard line (so she doesn't get trashed as the "soft on crime chick candidate"), nevertheless, this isn't the time to be electing someone who isn't gung-ho to stand up for what this country is supposed to mean. And while she may be, she's walking a fine line as the first serious woman candidate and so she can't say it, and I can't take that risk.
I had something of a revelation the other day, which I'll probably write up as a separate blog message in a day or two, but essentially it was this:
In a perfect world (which will, of course, never exist), with power distributed the way the founding fathers seem to have intended (much more like the European Union, with the states having most of the power and a very weak central Federal government) and candidates who actually lived up to their principles and not the bastardization of those principles that has become the two major parties, I'd probably vote primarily conservative at the Federal level and primarily liberal at the state.
This is because the Federal government is largely supposed to be responsible for the army and foreign policy. That's a huge over simplification, but still, the Feds responsibilities are largely fiscal, where I want some serious fiscal responsibility (usually the purview of conservatives) to end policies that continue to lead to massive deficits and runaway spending, to say nothing of quagmire wars that we should never be in that distract us from more pressing needs (and even more pressing wars in other countries in the region).
On the other hand, the State government is intended to be more the repository of social issues. Equal rights, education, gay marriage, services for the poor, sick and elderly, all of these should be under the control of the State governments, and these are the areas in which I favor a much more liberal "live and let live" stance. I also think that services like welfare, so badly abused in some areas of the country, become easier and easier to manage the smaller and smaller a local area you're dealing with. The massive federal waste on these programs would probably be significantly smaller (and thus, much more successful at helping those who truly need it, rather than becoming a lifestyle to the lazy) if entirely managed at the state or even local level.
Now, of course every so often we'd need to shake things up. Find someone with a few liberal leanings in the Federal government so that we'd do some humanitarian work like helping the victims of the Darfur genocide, for example, and find someone with some fiscal conservative ideals to keep our states' various tax rates from spiraling out of control.
But perhaps that gives you a little sense of what I believe and why I don't find either philosophy to be entirely antithetical to my own beliefs (even if each of the large formalized parties have really become an anathema, thus why I support run-off elections, a topic we've already covered in earlier blog posts).
Liam.
Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:08:00 AM
I hope one of your blog topics specifically addresses the issue of the States' role in our national government.
Personally, I feel your view on States rights is more of an ideal than anything else. I think the structures of federal and State authority is a kind of balancing act, checks and balances not unlike the three-pronged structure of our federal government.
Perhaps states should be the administerers of actions or programs that deal with those social issues. But I feel that the federal government has a kind of oversight to promote equal treatment in social issues involving "equal rights, education, gay marriage, services for the poor, sick and elderly." Define "control." Our government protects our inalienable rights (did I spell that right?). I just hope they are reasonably attainable in all areas of our country.
You may argue that if a person isn't getting the protection or services in their state because their state limits or excludes certain rights and services, that they can just move. Forcing people to move who do not have the resources to do so is a kind of abuse.
You say there is federal abuse, but there is State abuse as well. I agree that the administering of programs and services is likely best handled by States. But there has to be some equity among all states and a means to ensure it.
Perhaps in your blog topics you could get more specific by using examples that might help illustrate the issue. You do a great job with specifics and I look forward to reading more.
Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:46:00 AM
You are absolutely correct with respect to the ideal. I don't expect at any time in our lifetime we'll see anything like what the founding fathers thought they were designing. I'm not even sure we'd really WANT it, entirely. But as with so much of life, it's easier to make our political positions known if we can specify the playing field, even though we know that exact field may not ever come up.
One of the reasons I like Ron Paul is because I think he wants to move us closer to that ideal, but for the most part I just want someone to return us to the days before the President was imperial, back to when the Congress would check/balance him not because they were a different party but because they were a different branch of government. There actually was a time when the President could not count on the support of the Congress just because his party controlled it as well.
As to what the Federal government should have power over, Federal power should trump State's power pretty much only in the Judiciary. States are not allowed to violate the Constitution, and so individual states can't decide not to allow minorities to vote in their elections (for example) because our Federal Constitution makes that illegal. But the idea of banning gay marriage should not be a Federal power. In fact, gay marriage should be entirely a State's power, unless the judiciary decides that not allowing homosexuals to marry each other violates their Constitutional rights.
By the way, I've never been a "If you don't like it where you are, move" kind of person. I've always thought that was a weak argument, particularly in the United States where we're free to express the things we don't like and work to change them. I'm not saying the Federal government should no longer have any say in enforcing basic Constitutional rights. I'm saying the Federal government shouldn't have a say in social issues that aren't Constitutional in nature. Abortion, for example, unless you can find a legitimate (I don't think the Roe v Wade Constitutional argument was actually legitimate, btw) justification in the Constitution that it should be legal.
I'm not sure there DOES need to be equity between the States. That was never intended in the Constitution. Note, for example, that in my state (New Hampshire), we pay no state income tax. People who live in New Jersey and work in New York City (of which I was one for a year) pay income tax to both NJ and NY plus local city income tax to NYC. That's not equity, but it's perfectly legal.
Anyway, I'm at work (got here early, so I don't mind wasting a LITTLE time, but...) and so I need to get to the things they pay me for.
I'll think about this some more and try to remember to find something more specific to post later.
Liam.
Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:13:00 AM
This election will be important because it eliminates Bush. But I see that Bush is proving to be our country's most dangerous lame duck President ever.
Bush is again manipulating our country into yet another Middle East war. I think our country is being lulled into a false sense of security in thinking that once Bush is gone, the next President will easily pull out our military from Iraq. I am fearful that the Bush administration is planning an Iranian confrontation to be timed before the election, creating a mess that will be far more difficult to handle once Bush is out of office. It's no coincidence that Bush's speeches and actions regarding Iran have been escalating in recent months.
Unless I've missed it, I've not seen you comment on Bush's recent sights on Iran and its implications. And has any candidate even talked about Iran and/or Bush's current actions? If you would ever care to, I'd be interested in seeing your thoughts in your blog.
Saturday, October 27, 2007 12:59:00 AM
The reason I haven't said more about the prospect of war with Iran here is that I'm not sure what to say.
The evidence is there, the signs all point to it, it looks like the same playbook is being used that was used several years ago in Iraq, right down to some nearly identical statements. Just change all the Q's to N's and repeat.
But what is there to say? War with Iran is bad? I don't need to say it. I got into political blogging originally because there were news stories I was running into that I didn't think the average person was being exposed to, truths that I didn't think were out there.
I based this on my family and my friends, and spent some time researching and educating when I learned about something and discovered friends and family members didn't know it.
This nation is sick and tired of Bush's war in Iraq. They're sick and tired of Bush as he and Cheney continue to put up ever lower approval numbers. Like the old joke from Larry Miller, no one ever ends a bad relationship and says in parting "by the way, do you have a twin?". The sweeping change in the power structure in Congress a year ago is proof enough that people want a change, the last thing we want is ANOTHER disastrous war entered into because President Bush believes "diplomacy" means "give me everything I want, and once you do, THEN I'm willing to sit down with you and talk about it".
So really, I do think it looks like the war drums are being beaten with regard to Iran. And I think this would be a horrible mistake making our country yet less safe in the long run as we further cement in the minds of Muslims that America's war is on their entire religion.
To say nothing of the (incredible lack of) wisdom of getting us into another war when everything we hear says armed forces recruitment numbers are at their lowest point in years, attrition is at an all time high and our armed forces are stretched almost to the breaking point.
Who looks at their bank balance, realizes they're at very real risk of not being able to pay their bills this month, and says "Great! Let's take everyone we know out to the most expensive restaurant we can find, and I'll treat!"? Who looks at the gas tank and sees it mostly empty and says "Hey! Let's go for a joyride!"?
If we do get into a war with Iran before the end of Bush's Presidency, it will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is stupid, lazy, evil and has no concept of diplomacy, foreign policy or protecting America.
But really, as I said, it's all just my opinions, opinions I'm pretty sure are widely shared across the country, and opinions on something which might still turn out to be misread signs and portents.
It's hard to bring myself to spend too much energy on it for that reason.
Liam.
Friday, November 02, 2007 12:41:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home