This is just too weird. The Radikal, the leftist (despite arguments posed to the contrary by the trailor park mutants in Alachua) has grown quite fond of Congressman Ron Paul. For a liberal-democrat it's quite hard to come to grips with supporting a small-government advocate like Ron Paul, only Ron Paul is talking about his Libertarian-meets-Republican vision in a far more detailed and acceptable way than most libertarians or fiscal conservatives have before him. At least with Paul, as a liberal and generally harsh critic of economic liberalization, I at least feel that I could trust him to steer America in the right direction. Who knows, lowering taxes and key government subsidies may in fact (even as an experimental phase) kickstart private sector to deliver better services at lower costs to Americans.
I for one have issues with school vouchers, because I think they reward the children of the rich and otherwise condemn the youth of the lower middle class and poor to substandard educations. However, who can honestly say the current model is the best way to go. Anyone that's familiar with the advent of the FCAT and the emphasis on school ratings and the work in Tallahassee to tighten contractual loose-ends can attest to the fact that schools are in trouble and the old system could surely use an update - or maybe we could just test out a whole new approach? I mean why not?
As a leftist I believe in taxation to keep a nation afloat and prosperous, but what how did the U.S. do it before the income tax, an income that's barely been with this nation for a century? Understand that I do believe in the state serving in a citizen's welfare, I believe that government should have programs to assist citizens in distress or economic hardship. However, in many cases where the State offers assistance, the assistance becomes abused and the former laid off worker, for example, becomes a dependent of the taxpayers.
I believe gov't should retain certain policies and programs, but what I think many American don't realize is just how large the Federal government actually is. Even making the giant bureaucratic, tax, and military-spending cuts envisaged by Paul, we would still have a fairly well-suited government that could and would meet with the real-needs of its citizens. A gov't that would help those citizens falling to hard times and truly offer them an opportunity to fully re-integrate into the workforce, an opportunity that would be required of able-bodied and emotionally-stable Americans. We need a State that offers welfare programs, but I agree with Paul in that having a Welfare State (not the same thing) is quite detrimental given the U.S.' economic model.
Also, there's the fact that Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, against the Iraq War, and that he believes in diplomacy over military aggression as a means to settle international disagreements. I mean here you have a presidential candidate that if elected, would treat Iran with basic respect, would treat North Korea with basic respect... basic respect is by no means political capitulation or politically-weak, for goodness' sake it's probably the basis of maintaining proper diplomatic channels -- when's the last time anyone treated Syria, North Korea, or Iran with respect? You sanction a country you disagree with? You threaten it with military aggression?
Out of all the candidates out right now, Ron Paul is the only man that realistically could bring about positive change in this country, others worthy of mention are Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson (but the Dems won't give them the time of day). The most experienced Dem in the running, foreign-policy-wise, is the governor of New Mexico and look where they have him? Second, arguably third-tier standing with no hope of breaking into the Clinton/Obama/Edwards/borderline-Biden camp, but Ron Paul, I believe, can pull a lot of the Bible Belt that Rudy nor Romney have a prayer in getting...LOL..., I think he's going to get Democrats switching Republican NOT just to vote for him in the primary -- Dems that will stay loyal till '08! Dems that in many regards resemble Smith Dems that remain Crist-loyal, and he will make a KILLING with U.S. Service Personnel - NO ONE IS SAYING THAT, NO ONE, NO BLOGS, NEWS, NOTHING.
My prediction is Ron Paul will get a massive response from the military. And mind you, when Ron Paul talks about deescalating globally, I don't think this should be misconstrued as an advent to the Clinton-era base-reductions and military cuts, I think it simply means military spending will tap off and jobs will be secure in the defense sector, only those jobs won't be in Iraq or Afghanistan but more than likely back in South Korea, Germany, and the Pacific where they were pre-2001.
Main Idea: I like Ron Paul. Comments?
29 comments:
Hahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahhahaha
In case you didn't get it:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Christian,
I had the pleasure of seeing Rep. Paul speak in person at Google's candidate speaker series. While he has many great ideas, he has no support. He also lacks any charisma. He had trouble quickly responding to questions with coherent, sensible answers. This may not have been a problem in 1908, but in the tv/internet age, politicians need a certain level of being a politico to survive.
Lots of good ideas (lots of crackpot ones too IMO), but not enough likability to garner support or donations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
Here is the tape of his talk @ Google.
I dunno. Who knows much about him anyway. I mean, so he says this and that and it sounds appealing. Do a basic wikipedia search on him and you'll find good and bad things he's done.
Overall, I think he is just trying to put a mature/intelligent/pragmatic face on Republicanism. Come on, he was succeeded by Tom Delay in his Texas district's election. The people that voted for that party-hack-fascist Delay also voted for Ron Paul. So I would like to know: is he really the idealist he says he is or just another Republican turd who is trying to claim a moral high ground that liberals happen to like the sound of? I really don't know the answer to that. And who knows what he'd actually do if elected.
Conclusion: he sounds good but I'm not throwing my support in yet...he's still a Republican.
Christain:
I will think about a longer answer to your questions but the first thought that comes to mind as Churchill said, "If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are 40 and not a conservative, you have no brain."
It's funny how people change their opinions as they get older and get out into the real world.
As a Republican and the brunt of Far Left rhetoric of being a fascist and greedy, I believe that we embrace the concept of a hand up, not a hand out.
Some goog points so far. I like the first comment most (believe it or not). I think a lot of people are laughing at Ron Paul because he is so different than the other guys on that stage.
Ok, let's do this. Let's go down the line of a few candidates in the GOP so far, let's do this AS A REPUBLICAN, so calling them turds won't suffice (lol), let's try to be subjective here.
Rudy G - milks 911, weak on Roe, supported the Brady Bill, dirty marital background, going one worse that Clinton, as Rudy didn't just cheat, he divorced his wife and married his mistress all while IN OFFICE! Can anyone say -- no SHAME? He was openly cavorting with his mistress while his WIFE stayed back at Gracie.
Liabilities:
#1 Won't Get Bible Belt
#2 Won't Get NRA Support
#3 Is Too Pro-Bush
#4 Security Stance too extreme
#5 May lose NY, was always behind Hillary in the Senate numbers
#6 with Hillary "we'd be on defense against terrorism" Ripped a new one by Cavuto
#7 Remember Kerry/Swift Boat? There are hundreds of NYC Police, Firefighters, and Workers lining up to rebuke Rudy. It's already started on YouTube.
#8 In Senate race always trailed Hillary, can he beat her in '08? Can he even win New York State?
Romney - 5 words: What Does He Stand For? He can't win home state and his Mormon faith will raise issues w/ Moral Majority.
McCain - I agree with SJ, "his star is fading." Many Conservatives/Republicans dislike his tax and immigration packages. And though not a flip-flopper on issues, McCain is a proven Party Maverick, perhaps not such a bad thing for the electorate but certainly something that might get him on many top Republican's shitlist come fundraising and more importantly, the GOP Nat'l Convention. Revenge is a dish best served.....COLD.
Thompson - good speaker, same five words as Romney. And agree with SJ..he's a McCain'ite.
Brownback - hated for immigration FLIP-FLOP. Too 3rd tier, boring.
Huckabee - passionate, in line, but no chance.
Ron Paul - low taxes (never voted for taxes in 14yrs), no on Patriot Act, big on freedoms (ataple Constitutional/Liberatarian point), doesn't want to censor the Internet, against "Wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants to destroy Inflation tax, well liked by liberal, respected by Conservatives.
Liability: Seen as public enemy #1 by Republicans too used to milking Conservatives for their money and time, but more apt to exlude them from the decision-making process as has been the unofficial GOP standard for YEARS!
Comments?
-------------------------
Also, I like David's point that Ron Paul has no base. I disagree partially in that I think Conservatives will back him, but as of now, David is correct, Paul has no base.
However, is the fact that a candidate has no base, meaning perhaps he has no loyalties that may hinder his fairness or cloud his judgment, is that such a bad thing? Couldn't we look at this positively? Perhaps in the vein that anything asked of Paul will receive an honest answer?
Thnx for the link, I'll watch it this afternoon.
David, comments?
--------------
Pete:
Paul voted to impeach Clinton and there is no doubt that if we force the right/left labels, Paul is on the right. However, he's more a Libertarian than a Republican. Watch these clips.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b0GJQ14_0po
(and I'm not saying this is anyone's issue here, but just to show Paul's legitimate (not polished) ways. Below is a link from 19YRS AGO!)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
Dr. Paul's love of freedom and is Libertarian values, I believe, soften some of our instinctive skepticism of Republicans as liberal-democrats. Paul is like Gravel or Kucinich in a way. Would you say Dennis or Mike are Dems if there were a real, organized party farther to the left that existed and offered a viable shot at the presidency, would we then see Gravel, Kucinich, Nader, Jerry Brown with the dems? No.
Paul did the LP thing in '88 and I think he, like many of us, realize that in this country 3ed parties cannot have a shot, so he brought some of his 3rd party views and joined the GOP, but is he a Republican like Tom DeLay, I would have to disagree.
On the drug issue, on the war issue, on the Patriot Act, on Bush, on civil liberties...you just can't lump Ron Paul in with all the other Republicans. There's political lip service and then there's down right rebels and Paul is not one of the nine robots up there, that at least I'm willing to stick to till 2008
what did you think of the clips pete?
------------------------
Hugh,
That Churchill quote was incredible. Hitler had no idea what kind of a leader he was up against, but not so fast, give your thoughts on Ron Paul.
You're no fascist Bud, but I do believe you're a conservative and I'm dying to see what you say about Dr. Paul. Not assuming anything you'll say, but I think this is a very dangerous time for conservatives as well, b/c Dr. Paul is saying a lot of things they believe in, have believed in for years, decades, but after so much time being stripped of authority by the Republicans, republicans that think 'republican' and 'conservative' are interchangeable terms that apply to all GOP supporters... I think many Conservatives have been waiting for the moment to rise up and regain control, some control of the GOP, but I think many are looking around, some are scratching their head, and others are thinking this to be a trap. I think Ron Paul, if successful, will light up a conservative fire in the GOP reminiscent of the fervor of Reagan's 1984 re-election.
Comments?
Some goog points so far. I like the first comment most (believe it or not). I think a lot of people are laughing at Ron Paul because he is so different than the other guys on that stage.
Ok, let's do this. Let's go down the line of a few candidates in the GOP so far, let's do this AS A REPUBLICAN, so calling them turds won't suffice (lol), let's try to be subjective here.
Rudy G - milks 911, weak on Roe, supported the Brady Bill, dirty marital background, going one worse that Clinton, as Rudy didn't just cheat, he divorced his wife and married his mistress all while IN OFFICE! Can anyone say -- no SHAME? He was openly cavorting with his mistress while his WIFE stayed back at Gracie.
Liabilities:
#1 Won't Get Bible Belt
#2 Won't Get NRA Support
#3 Is Too Pro-Bush
#4 Security Stance too extreme
#5 May lose NY, was always behind Hillary in the Senate numbers
#6 with Hillary "we'd be on defense against terrorism" Ripped a new one by Cavuto
#7 Remember Kerry/Swift Boat? There are hundreds of NYC Police, Firefighters, and Workers lining up to rebuke Rudy. It's already started on YouTube.
#8 In Senate race always trailed Hillary, can he beat her in '08? Can he even win New York State?
Romney - 5 words: What Does He Stand For? He can't win home state and his Mormon faith will raise issues w/ Moral Majority.
McCain - I agree with SJ, "his star is fading." Many Conservatives/Republicans dislike his tax and immigration packages. And though not a flip-flopper on issues, McCain is a proven Party Maverick, perhaps not such a bad thing for the electorate but certainly something that might get him on many top Republican's shitlist come fundraising and more importantly, the GOP Nat'l Convention. Revenge is a dish best served.....COLD.
Thompson - good speaker, same five words as Romney. And agree with SJ..he's a McCain'ite.
Brownback - hated for immigration FLIP-FLOP. Too 3rd tier, boring.
Huckabee - passionate, in line, but no chance.
Ron Paul - low taxes (never voted for taxes in 14yrs), no on Patriot Act, big on freedoms (ataple Constitutional/Liberatarian point), doesn't want to censor the Internet, against "Wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants to destroy Inflation tax, well liked by liberal, respected by Conservatives.
Liability: Seen as public enemy #1 by Republicans too used to milking Conservatives for their money and time, but more apt to exlude them from the decision-making process as has been the unofficial GOP standard for YEARS!
Comments?
-------------------------
Also, I like David's point that Ron Paul has no base. I disagree partially in that I think Conservatives will back him, but as of now, David is correct, Paul has no base.
However, is the fact that a candidate has no base, meaning perhaps he has no loyalties that may hinder his fairness or cloud his judgment, is that such a bad thing? Couldn't we look at this positively? Perhaps in the vein that anything asked of Paul will receive an honest answer?
Thnx for the link, I'll watch it this afternoon.
David, comments?
--------------
Pete:
Paul voted to impeach Clinton and there is no doubt that if we force the right/left labels, Paul is on the right. However, he's more a Libertarian than a Republican. Watch these clips.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b0GJQ14_0po
(and I'm not saying this is anyone's issue here, but just to show Paul's legitimate (not polished) ways. Below is a link from 19YRS AGO!)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
Dr. Paul's love of freedom and is Libertarian values, I believe, soften some of our instinctive skepticism of Republicans as liberal-democrats. Paul is like Gravel or Kucinich in a way. Would you say Dennis or Mike are Dems if there were a real, organized party farther to the left that existed and offered a viable shot at the presidency, would we then see Gravel, Kucinich, Nader, Jerry Brown with the dems? No.
Paul did the LP thing in '88 and I think he, like many of us, realize that in this country 3ed parties cannot have a shot, so he brought some of his 3rd party views and joined the GOP, but is he a Republican like Tom DeLay, I would have to disagree.
On the drug issue, on the war issue, on the Patriot Act, on Bush, on civil liberties...you just can't lump Ron Paul in with all the other Republicans. There's political lip service and then there's down right rebels and Paul is not one of the nine robots up there, that at least I'm willing to stick to till 2008
what did you think of the clips pete?
------------------------
Hugh,
That Churchill quote was incredible. Hitler had no idea what kind of a leader he was up against, but not so fast, give your thoughts on Ron Paul.
You're no fascist Bud, but I do believe you're a conservative and I'm dying to see what you say about Dr. Paul. Not assuming anything you'll say, but I think this is a very dangerous time for conservatives as well, b/c Dr. Paul is saying a lot of things they believe in, have believed in for years, decades, but after so much time being stripped of authority by the Republicans, republicans that think 'republican' and 'conservative' are interchangeable terms that apply to all GOP supporters... I think doubt is reigning supreme in the low numbers hurting Paul.
I think many Conservatives have been waiting for the moment to rise up and regain control, some control of the GOP, but I think many are looking around, some are scratching their head, and others are thinking this to be a trap. I think Ron Paul, if successful, will light up a conservative fire in the GOP reminiscent of the fervor of Reagan's 1984 re-election.
Comments?
I know very little about Ron Paul. I certainly haven't made up my mind on anyone at this point. I think most Republicans are in the same boat with me, hence to low amount of money going to any one candidate. My first thought about Paul is this, he has a small rabid group of followers similar to Howard Dean. That alone causes me to be cautious.
PS- I am a fiscal conservative but a moderate on social issues. I fall into a large part of the Republican Party. Some of the issues you raise about the other candidates don't bother me at all. I am looking for the whole package.
OK- here is a longer answer:
Rudy- I admire Bush for his stand on terrorism. He gets it. Rudy gets it. Plus point.
Marriages- 50% 0f marriages fail in America. That would be a lot of broken glass houses if this was a make or break point- Look at Clinton, the darling of the Dems!
NRA will pick the best candidate on the ballot in '08. It will depend on the Dem offering. I don't see any one of them that will win the NRA vote.
The firemen and police will vote their conscience in the booth, not what the unions tell them to say.
Romey- How can you say that he won't get Mass? He won the governorship in one of the most liberal states in the union. He has a lot going for him. They all flip/flop. Look at Hillary!
McCain- I have flipped/flopped on him to the point that he lost me. Sorry.
Fred- Now there is one person that I am watching closely. I'm right on the edge. If he can raise the money, watch out.
I've got to ask you. Why do you think that raising taxes is the way to go. It has been proven time and again that cutting taxes stimulates the economy more than anything else. Every time the Dems raise taxes we head for a recession. Even Kennedy knew this. Your attacks (not yours personally) on the 10% that pay 90% of the tax dollars is self defeating. I just don't get it. By the way, the rich for the Dems is a family making $200,000 a year. That ain't rich in my book.
Another PS- I forgot to say that maybe you will join the ranks of Horowitz, Dennis Miller and Goldberg and switch to the conservative side. You ARE leaning :)
Interesting point. Go for the package and party but don't become fanatical about just one person -- (I think Charlie Grapski might see otherwise on this one...) But good point.
I just think that Ron Paul is saying some very powerful things and the fact that he's not merely speaking of a future vision, I mean the fact he's lived and voted alongside this vision, emboldens his stance.
I don't think Paul's supporters are necessarily 'rabid,' as much as I think they're fed up. I think a lot of people see Ron Paul as hope.
On Romney...MASS has a long-standing tradition of mixing local gov't. Romney is one of many Republican governors and state-elected officials. Romney is the third straight republican governor of Mass (see Paul Cellucci and William Weld). The last democratic governor of Mass was Michael Dukakis in 1991. Romney would get annihilated in Mass. in a presidential race -- sorry to have to break it down like that.
p.s.
$200k is a boat-load of money to blue collar American families, there are soo many people struggling and there's so little opportunity as of late (idk what anyone says, outsourcing has hurt this nation and so has the monstrusly expensive wars and nation-building efforts around the world).
I don't know that I'm leaning, lol, but I will say this...what kind of an American are you if you side with only one party and you never look beyond those stupid partisan lines. Here I see Ron Paul and I'm not scared to say, that just because the man is GOP that I won't consider voting for him.
I care about the working man and effective government. Hillary, Obama, Edwards..I'm sorry, but electing those people would be a joke. I'd elect Bill or Mike if I could, but they have no chance. Ron Paul on the other hand has a 1:1,000,000 shot and I'm clinging to it.
p.s.
What do you guys think of Ann Coulter's boy Duncan Hunter? NOt my guy at all, but you're thoughts?
And yes...soon we'll discuss the Dem's (lol), sheesh. Already two NASTY (lol) emails. :o)
I have voted for a Dem for Pres. before. I vote the man not the Party but the offerings from the Dems of late are pitiful, IMHO. I even voted for McCarthy as a protest vote that year!
I actually heard JCB was running Ron Paul's campaign
Rudy- I admire Bush for his stand on terrorism. He gets it. Rudy gets it. Plus point.
You mean like pushing for the mobbed up incompetent, Bernard Kerik, to head Homeland Security? Or do you mean like shirking his responsibility on the Iraq Study Group to make speeches?
This is a man who as Mayor placed the NYC's emergency command center in the World Trade Center -- even after the first WTC attacks.
[Re: Rudy] The firemen and police will vote their conscience in the booth, not what the unions tell them to say.
You mean like cutting back from 300 firemen to only 25 firemen "searching" for firemen's remains just hours after recovering the Bank of Nova Scotia's gold? Firemen better vote their conscience.
Romey- How can you say that he won't get Mass? He won the governorship in one of the most liberal states in the union. He has a lot going for him. They all flip/flop. Look at Hillary!
Actually, he is the GOP's best shot at keeping the WH. Romey would bring business solidly back to the GOP and he can win in the general. It is times like these that I thank God for the religious bigots in the Republican party.
That said, he won't win Mass. You don't win a state by attacking it over a year (and that is what he will have done by the time the GE swings around).
Fred- Now there is one person that I am watching closely. I'm right on the edge. If he can raise the money, watch out.
Lets see. An religiously athesitc/agnostic movie actor decides to run for President. Republican insiders decide he is the next Reagan, yet, despite this, he raises a meager $3 million in june. What a let down.
By the way, the rich for the Dems is a family making $200,000 a year. That ain't rich in my book.
You are out of touch.
Still waiting for ryanmoseley.com
RyanMoseley.com has been shelved for Winter Break. Why use a presidential site during senate elections? Why mess with someone with pre-LSAT's.
Besides, I've been getting a lot of favorable info on your SBP. Expect it mid December...right around the time in 2004 when PG was illegally fired.
Just for reference, Fred has not announced yet but will likely do so around Labor Day. His first debate will likely be the Black America on at Morgan University (the Republican equal of the Howard University Debate for the Dems that took place on the day the Supreme Court issued the new ruling for race in schools).
Frank. No one knows when Thompson will announce. He was supposed to announce earlier in July but he can't staff worth a damn (his bitch wife keeps firing people... but i'd fire anyone for a girl that fine)
What could you possibly have on Moseley? He is clean.
Chill out Ryan, we'll discuss you in December. For now it's U.S. politics and Stafford Jones.
Telling you all right now, the Republican winner is going to be Fred Thompson. It will be March before anybody truly has enough dirt to stick to him. Not saying that the dirt won't be announced, but it won't truly enter the primary voters minds until after the big primaries. He was stayed out of all the early debates, will not be Straw Poll in Iowa. If he can show McCain as a no win, Romney as a true flip-flopper in the legacy of all Mass. politicians, and Rudy as too liberal, he will be fine. Without cmapaigning he already is in the 12% range, that will only go up as people flee McCain.
As for Ron Paul, yeah he gives good answers, and do fine if he actually has a base, but I think Ron Paul (Gravel, DK as well) are mostly internet phenoms. No actual ground games.
Strong point. Ron Paul, especially, has one of the most aggressive (and successful) e-based campaigns I've ever seen. I really believe in Ron Paul's vision, I'd like a little bit more for the working class in healthcare -- I'm not totally sold on that aspect, but over all, Ron Paul seems to have most of my interests.
Thompson is great for GOP-line conservatives, but I think it's Paul's libertarianism that really attracts me. I really don't think I'm turning Republican or that I ever will, but I will concede that the LP is on the right sort of, so I guess I'm "Sort-of" looking at some things they stand for, but I'm certainly still on the Left.
However, given the current stock of candidates, Ron Paul gets my vote and all else goes to the Dems.
2:01: Telling you right now, Thompson won't be the nominee. Republicans who believe that are like the Dems who thought it would be Dean.
2:01: W/o money Fred sinks.
Yeah, Dems who thought Dean was the eventual nominee were kidding themselves from the beginning. Again no ground game. College Professors and Students don't make up a large enough group for Dean to win.
I will say that I have been impressed with Dean as DNC Chair though. His "50 state" strategy has worked somewhat.
McCain, I believe, is a lot closer to doing a Dean type failure this year. 2008 really was McCain's to lose and has been since 2000. He has had the name recognition, tried copying the Bush plan of attack, and advisors. The religious right just never trust the man.
Fred, I will agree is dead without money, but so is every candidate. He raised 3.5 m in just June. If you extend that out for four months. He comes in just ahead of Romney's 2nd Quarter Numbers.
Christian, of course, none of us have mentioned the potential of Newt running for President. If that happens, all hell will break looose.
Obama just pulled a Dean. He is history.
I've always been concerned with the piss-poor reception Obama gets from African Americans. Most AA Dems (much to Obama's chagrin) are almost instinctfully behind Hillary. I really nor trust or personally like her for president.
Post a Comment