Suzy:
I've been wrestling with an upper respiratory tract infection for about three weeks now. Bad thing is, there's no real treatment for it and you just have to get over it on your own. Means even more tea than normal and oranges and soup and lots of liquids. Meh. Now to the point.
Tomorrow on December 16th we celebrate the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. I believe this is another decisive time in American History; one that could determine whether we remain the world's superpower and whether we wield that power by example or by force.
Who's the best candidate out there right now from either side? Ron Paul (Republican, Tx). Please, don't take my word for it. Check out his website for yourself. Also consider checking out the other links that are provided on YouTube.
Homepage
Wikipedia Entry
Position Video: Where he Stands on the Issues
I like Dr. Paul as a candidate for this reason: he has always voted according to the Constitution.
He believes in cutting back the power of the federal government and getting back to a government that the founders intended. This isn't just political speech. He has introduced several bills to Congress that would limit the broad federal claims across all issues: from foreign policy and monetary policy (he supports bringing home the troops and saving the $3.5 TRILLION pricetag from growing even higher) to civil liberties (he voted against the Patriot Act and continues to fight government efforts to keep ever-growing files on its own citizens).
He believes that candidates who get elected for federal offices shouldn't owe favors to big companies for financing their campaigns. Dr. Paul has raised almost $15 million from individuals across the social, economic, and political spectrums. What does that mean? If he gets elected, he doesn't have to do favors for big business (read: oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, agricultural companies, etc.). And yes, I've personally donated. I think it's important.
This guy is too smart to fit into 30 second sound blurbs and video clips, which helps explain why you might not have heard of him on the news. He has a huge internet following who have started massive grassroots efforts of support--monetary and otherwise. People from around the world are making political videos and starting campaign drives and writing rants on blogs... they're crazy about him because he's the only candidate who is calling for limits on federal government at a time when our country is borrowing $300 billion EVERY DAY from foreign banks. I can't even imagine how much money that is. No wonder the value of the dollar is dropping like a rock! I mean, it's great for us while we're getting paid in euros, but is it starting to suck for you guys?
I think that the person leading our country shouldn't be a career politician. Dr. Paul retired into politics after a career delivering babies. I think that the person leading our country should write books and essays about what (s)he thinks is right for America. Dr. Paul has written 13 books and countless essays (which you can read on his website). I think that the person leading our country should hold nothing higher than our Constitution. I think that one's obvious.
If you like him, email a link to his homepage to your friends and families. Talk about him at work and at school. I think it's every American's duty (and all of you are smart enough besides) to be able to make informed decisions about his or her vote.
Do you know how your candidate votes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
oh no, bad suzy.
Never voted to increase taxes???
Decrease taxes?!
Pay off national debt???
How do those go together???
Never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership??? Scary...
And what does his experience as a physician have anything to do with being president..."4000 babies"...and? How will that affect his views on healthcare?
I thought you were pro-socialized healthcare???
How do those go together??? Small government doesn't pull that off well.
I think we need a government with power that still respects our liberties. I think taxes, when used appropriately, are *gasp* a good thing. The past 8 years have provided enough tax cuts. Focus on making the American dollar worth something again.
I need more info. :)
PS-Abolishing federal agencies is not my cup of tea, and since when was a hard core pro-life stance yours?
What do you agree with him on and not agree with him on?
You no say enough. :P
Man, it looks like you're getting ganged up on, Suzy! I've also been intrigued by Paul as a candidate, and although I still haven't fully supported him (or any candidate for that matter), I certainly like a lot about him.
Is Ron Paul pro-life? Yes. Would he oppose universal healthcare? Absolutely. If you're pro-choice and pro-universal-healthcare (both of which I am too) then understandably it's going to be difficult to support a candidate who isn't. But hopefully you also aren't going to vote based on these two issues alone!
Chances are you have a pretty strong stance on things like: the PATRIOT ACT, the war in Iraq, and the possibly impending war in Iran. Ron Paul is one of the only candidates who opposes the PATRIOT ACT and did so from the beginning. Same thing with the war in Iraq. He also is one of the only candidates who is against using our military against Iran.
Now the only other two candidates who have opinions like this are Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. And they have more favorable opinions on abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration etc. So if it were down to Paul versus one of them for the presidency I would probably vote against Paul.
However, realistically it doesn't look like either Kucinich or Gravel have much of a chance of getting the Democratic nomination. Paul also doesn't have much of a chance of getting the Republican nomination - but he has a much better chance than they do. He has a huge grassroots following which they really don't. So it makes some sense to support him over those other candidates in the primaries, even if your ideology lines up more precisely with them.
Now if he wins the Republican nomination (unlikely yet possible), and Clinton or Obama win the Democatic (very, very likely), our ideologies line up better with Paul's than those two! It's counterintuitive, but it's also very counterintuitive that self-proclaimed liberals would be in support of the Constitution-thwarting PATRIOT ACT and wars in Iraq and Iran. By the way, Clinton and Obama are also against same-sex marriage, and Paul believes that it should be left up to the states. He also opposes the death penalty, which Clinton supports.
Anyway, I guess my overall point is that you can pick on any candidate on a few issues, because there probably isn't a single candidate that agrees with you on every single one. And of the candidates that are showing hope of having a shot in the next election, Paul is the probably the candidate that agrees with us on the most issues.
Of course what Deckard P said is true about aligning yourself with the candidate who most resembles your beliefs, and of course I don't agree with every single thing Paul says. But I agree with him on what I see as the most important issue: cutting back the size of our federal government. It's too big and too inefficient.
To address what you've said, Ash, I want to begin with a 'thank you' for thinking critically and not just taking what I say to heart cuz I'm your friend. I appreciate people who use their brains. :)
How can you pay off the national debt without increasing taxes? Stop spending money on wars that we can't afford. Stop spreading federal tax money over so many programs that none of them do any good and choose the ones that will do the most good for the American people, and cut funding from the rest.
How do we make the dollar worth something again? It's interesting you mention that. Paul has supported tying the dollar back to a gold standard. Right now, basically, the value of the dollar changes because of how many dollars are out printed by our federal banks. The value changes quickly right now when things like housing markets crash and we print more dollars. It's like we're pulling money out of thin air when there's no real wealth behind it to support it. On the other hand, if we tie the dollar back to a gold standard, you could actually go to the federal reserve and trade it in for a specified amount of gold. And, the value would be less affected by things like market crashes.
Sure, taxes can be used for good purposes. But we have to assure that the purposes are actually good, and efficient. Do you think that government programs are efficient and perform the tasks that they were meant to perform?
Gun ownership is a Constitutional right. Though I would be open to a debate about federal gun control (because I actually don't have a very strong opinion about it), the thing I like is that his voting record down to the last detail (aka federal gun ownership restrictions) follows his conviction that the Constitution is what the American people should follow. And that (following the Constitution in political matters before following anything else) is something I also wholeheartedly support.
His experience as a physician is relevant to being president because it means that he hasn't been a politician his entire life. He comes with a background not in the aloof world of elite political party nominations and game playing and obligations to big business; He's not a career politician, and so has a background of working, paying taxes, voting, and participating in the 'normalities' of American life.
I actually oppose universal healthcare in the 'States. I think that it goes against American ideals of freedom and capitalism and self-dependence. Not only that, but out of all the things the federal government has control of, and you want to turn over control of your health as well? Not to say there isn't a problem with the system as-is because there are huge problems with the health care system. But I don't think that the federal government should (nor does it have the right to) babysit its citizens from the time we are born to the time we die. We don't need the government to make our health decisions nor our retirement decisions nor our decisions about who we marry.
Here is another way to look at the healthcare thing: my basic belief about federal government is that it should ONLY exist to protect the civil liberties of its citizens. Is access to healthcare a civil liberty? Probably. Does the system now prevent citizens from access to healthcare? Arguable. Let's ask a different question. Is making choices about your own health and well-being a civil liberty? Absolutely. Would a federal universal healthcare program limit your ability to choose what's best for you? YES.
A statewide program, however, for providing socialized medicine (not healthcare) for all state residents might work, and would not have the above limitations.
After all, I'm not completely heartless. ;)
Wow, Suzy, I didn't know you were such a libertarian! ;-) I go back and forth and it tends to be the issues like gun control and universal healthcare that I'm so on the fence about that candidates' positions on those topic don't really affect my opinion of them. My biggest beef with Paul is definitely the pro-life thing, which also happens to be one of the issues he has the most anti-libertarian stance on (along with immigration, probably).
Anyway, I don't plan on donating money to him anytime soon but it would be a very good thing if he ended up getting the Republican nomination - whether he won or lost the presidency, we would be getting a breath of fresh air after 8 years of the Bush regime.
Hey guys! I (Greg) thought I'd include something I found the other day that I thought was somewhat relevant to the convo: Obama's and Tom Coburn's Transparency Act of 2006.
An excerpt from DailyKOs because my head hurts too much to comment:
"anyone can discover the pockets of federal dollars. The site tracks contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans.
What can we dig up? Read on for 7 examples (contracts with KBR/Halliburton, Tom Delay's pork, no bid contracts with defense contractors and even the government of Canada, spending on guided missiles, maintenance of dams, and stranger things including flags, perfumes, and hand tools). I also talk about how this fits into Sen. Obama's broader plans to make government transparent."
National debt is unreal; we all know this. The dollar is dropping, the market is in a recession (read about inflation since the 2006 housing market crash started), doubt is everywhere. But we are still borrowing from those that will loan to us. We are still writing out money that we don't have. Each one of us "owes" $30,207.89.
Yes, he's pro-small government. He talks about abolishing the IRS and cutting out unnecessary expenditures but look at the above website; there's a lot that can be trimmed.
We are in the need of some drastic changes. Ron Paul is proposing some drastic changes but doesn't have the political clout that can muck that up. His financing is coming ::primarily:: from individual citizens, not big tobacco, pharm, lobbyists, etc. Check the candidates at opensecrets.org.
I, myself, am not necessarily against universal healthcare. From our talks with our Canadian representative here, universal healthcare there definitely has its flaws. It seems that the idea may be greater than the practice (depending upon severity of condition, one may wait months to get inspected; money will expedite the process but isn't that what universal healthcare is there for?, to allow everyone to have that ability to get better? If you can pay to speed it up, someone else is waiting longer that may not be able to afford to bump their position up). However, I would like to know anyone's thoughts on a universal medicare that Suzy had mentioned. One where the medicine is drastically subsidized but people still pay for the doctor. We were toying around with this idea at lunch...
I had more to add but I was sitting by Suzy as she wrote and what I wanted to clarify, she basically stole my words.
Heeheehee. I love all of these comments. This is beautiful: people actually having intellectual conversation. Yay!
In all honesty, I play the devil's advocate a lot. Not that I agree with you completely, but I kinda knew the answers to a lot of those questions :)
Okay, for starters: I do think that a lot of the federal programs that are in place do a great deal of good. I also agree that most of them are operated poorly and are notorious for inefficient use of tax dollars. I just don't like Ron Paul's over-arching terminology of just cutting the programs. I want him to explain which ones and how. Are there some aspects of two programs that he can merge, etc? For example, it seems that as a dietitian, I am constantly writing letters and voting to stop the funding cuts (or proposed funding cuts) to WIC. I personally watch how this program feeds hungry women and children every day. Infants that need specialty formulas, which are extremely expensive, would go without if it weren't for this program. But that's a ramble in the wrong direction. I think we all know you are not heartless ;) I just think the issue deserves clarity. If it's out there, I'm all ears.
Also, what is the time line for this program-cutting? We are talking thousands of federal employees without jobs, and haha, without many programs to turn to. That's not going to help the economy much.
Furthermore, it is a no-brainer that ending the war and not starting any new ones saves money....just not as fast as ending the war, etc. and NOT cutting taxes. I'll even compromise: no increase in taxes. And that's a huge compromise :D
The abortion issue. I'm sure after my last blog on abortion you know that I'm not really sure how to address this one yet. I currently tend to vote more towards pro-choice, but the little voice inside me is going "yay, no killing babies!" That's my own tug-of-war, and I'm not really able to hold a candidate liable either way, but I knew it was a hot button. I do find it interesting though, that you (Suzy) defend your pro-choice stance with the constitution, yet you claim that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. I think that this illustrates an important pivotal point for any libertarians considering his vote: his interpretation of the constitution.
I'm pretty open to debate about gun control as well. I think there needs to be more checks and balances. Longer wait periods for licenses and background checks. Age limits? What about assault riffles? I mean, yeah, let the farm boys do their hunting and let a man defend his home and all of that hoopla, but I think exercising some control at this point is necessary.
Of course I'm against the PATRIOT ACT. I'm not that off my rocker!
I could discuss socialized healthcare and socialized medicine all day. I don't think there is a perfect way out there, but I think it would be an improvement upon what we have now. I think that because it would be socialized medicine within a society that is so capital and democracy-based, that the citizens would exact a lot more control than we are giving ourselves credit for. I think there would be a greater emphasis on preventative care as well....but I'm stopping now.
The major problem I see when you clump all of these issues together is the huge overhaul of enormous institutions all at once. How does one brace the economy and the lifestyle of our citizens for such an enormous shift? Is it possible?
Like Matt said, any break from the current regime would be welcome.
As I
As I was reading all the comments certain ideas or thoughts would come to mind but they were all addressed. As much as I like the idea of a more state based government and a couple of other things Paul supports, I honestly don't know if I could allow myself to vote for someone who is so pro-life. I know it's bad to let one issue be the deciding factor but I just don't think I could bring myself to vote for someone who is pro-life.
Ashlee also brought up an very good point. Paul's whole campaign is centered round upholding the constitution but so far it's been just implied what exactly that means to him.
Hooray for Suzy, coming over to the libertarian side. I've always thought you should get rid of that 'leans way left politically' tag you put on yourself.
Anyone that supports gun control should watch the movie "Red Dawn".
I don't think it's implied at all what the Constitution means to Paul. It's pretty clear the stances that he takes on the main issues.
Obviously I don't agree on his pro-life stance. But like I've said before, he's still the best candidate because of his other stances, and I'm not a one-issue voter. Besides, if he were elected, hopefully the other liberals in the Senate and Congress would hold out against that nonsense.
I may start another discussion about socialized medicine, because I don't think our citizens would exert any control over it at all because most of us are just too apathetic. Just look at voting records. The only ones who would care are those with a monetary interest, like the pharmaceutical companies. And them in charge might be worse than our government in charge. Either one's bad.
Ash, you do make a good point about a huge overhaul of many things all at once. But that's sort of the point, right? That we have to stop living like we have been or the economy, the ecosystem, the ever-increasing powers of the central government... all of it's gonna be down the tubes; we need something drastic. As far as bracing the economy and peoples' lives for it, the workers wouldn't be completely without help. They would have the normal severance packages and unemployment while they looked for new jobs.
And, remember that no matter how much I want to overhaul the whole thing I know realistically that it won't happen all at once because government is slow. It's not like one day we'll have all these programs and the next day they're gone; there would certainly be a phase-out period. So I'm not really worried at this point about timetables and specific plans on which programs to cut--that will come after someone is elected. The important thing right now is that his ideas are heard and spread.
Oh, and dad, the tag says "leans way left SOCIALLY." Come one, I'd never limit myself by that kind of a label. ;)
Wow... I seriously had to scroll a half hour just to get back to the top for this comment box. It sounds like some people are hungering for a freethinker's-esque forum again or something!
I think, realistically, we can say that if Paul even did make it through the primaries and got elected, just like ::most:: presidents ::should::, he would give and take on most issues (although, no one can really know until it should happen). I also think that we can realistically say that he wouldn't even be able to bring many of them to the table unless he was elected for a second term, and then maybe.
However, the democrat-controlled congress got elected into that position for exactly that: a change. I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone can agree that the change the most people wanted was some sort of end to the Iraq war, whether through abrupt end, phasing out, or even something remotely more than just a brief mentioning in the Speaker of the House's victorious speech when she got that position. But there has been no change. Err...correction, the Senate (and I think the House now) has approved another expenditure bill approving another $70 billion (but for the first time less than Bush asked for) for the war despite "they're ongoing efforts to end it" as we always seem to hear.
Anywho, I agree with Suzy that the ideas just need to be heard first. Spread the idea that there is possibility for change and give them the hope and instruction on how to make that change, and they will seek it.
Post a Comment