I'm not pro-Life, but I am for Ron Paul. Apparently a few Huckabee supporters in the media are saying the Ron Paul is pro-abortion because, get this, he supports a policy that would make it legal for states to legalize abortion. It is called overturning ''Roe v. Wade'', but I guess the hope is that Huckabee supporters are dumb enough not to understand the implications of overturning ''Roe v. Wade'', which has been part of the conservative agenda for 35 years. This includes both social conservatives and even pro-choice conservatives who believe in the plain meaning of the constitution. Lynn Swann and Fred Thompson never appeared to understand this, so it wouldn't surprise me if most people who consider themselves conservatives fall for this line.
Despite the spin and what essentially amounts to telling a big lie against Ron Paul, there is, I think, a fundamental question at stake here that may split the conservative vote even more than it already has been. For most of the nation's history, issues of health, safety, welfare, and morals were reserved to the states under the plain language of the federal constitution and the 10th Amendment. However, following WWII, a series of cases, of which ''Roe'' was a part, vaulted these issues into the realm of the federal government. This meant that these issues now became federal issues whether or not people were willing to accept this power grab by the Supreme Court and Congress.
And while the issues of safety regulation and others related to commerce have been just as integral to the destruction of the federal Constitution, it is really on moral issues that conservatives may reach a total split. The question is this: (a) do conservatives fight to put these issues back at the state level where they belong in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution; or (b) do conservatives deal with the fact that these are now federal issues by using Congress, the federal courts, and amendments to the federal Constitution to legislate what are primarily moral issues?
I fully believe that now that the GOP has become populist rather than conservative, we will continue to see morality issues such as abortion, gay rights, marriage, divorce, school prayer, church-state separation, and whole host of other issues handled at the federal level rather than by the states. Liberals and activist liberal judges went out of there way to destroy the plain meaning of the constitution when it suited their needs. They may be about to reap the reward of the destruction they have sown by seeing the federal government used to enforce one particular segment of society's morality upon the rest of us. Traditionally this has happened at the state level, but theoretically at the state level, people would have a greater say in what they wanted for their morality-based legislation. This also would theoretically allow for greater diversity among opinions. Diversity is supposed to be unquestionably good, right?
More importantly, however, is that the constitution says these should not be federal issues. We should be very reluctant to change that document without some overwhelming reason besides satisfying the latest controversial issue ''du jour''. Unfortunately, that has already happened without changing a single word in the document.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
There is still Ron Paul
Romney supporters and Thompson supporters who switched to Romney are now decrying the current state of the GOP and clamoring that there are now true conservatives left. The have either not heard of Ron Paul or have drunk to deeply of the spin that Ron Paul is not a real conservative because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He is not anti-War, no president has been or ever can be. He is not eve opposed to the war against terrorism or the war in Afghanistan. He is just opposed to the war in Iraq.
And so, despite the misconception of some conservatives, there is still Ron Paul who is 100% conservative on all issues including going after bin Laden and his network in Afghanistan and the rest of the world. He has only refused to adopt the revised notion of interventionism as compatible with conservatism. The one that Bush claimed to support when he was inaugurated. The same notion that told us to oppose Clinton’s war against Serbia, which as a by-product helped foster the growth of radical Islam in the Balkans.
Remember how Reagan responded to the terrorist bombing of our embassy in Lebanon? He withdrew the troops and as a result, attacks against Americans stopped. The next round of terrorist attacks against the U.S. didn’t renew until someone had the bright idea of permanently deploying troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. For some strange reason, all of the troops were withdrawn after the 9/11 attacks from the very country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. That is because we know that our military bases there did nothing to stop terrorism.
Terrorism can’t be stopped with conventional military forces. Putting our troops on the ground in Iraq just makes them targets. The next terrorist attack against the U.S. is being plotted inside of safe, stable countries and inside of private houses. The only way to fight them is through intelligence gathering and special forces to identify and destroy them quietly. A permanent military occupation of every country in Asia does nothing but drain the treasury and make our troops targets for anyone with a gun.
Ron Paul has never blamed America and has always supported going after those who have attacked us. He has only questioned the current tactics we are employing and for this he has been smeared as a coward and unpatriotic. If you want to send a message to the GOP that we are sick of watered-down conservatism, vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Otherwise your vote will either be considered support for McCain’s ameliorating moderation or the an affirmation of the “progressive” movement’s desire to control every aspect of our economic and social lives.
And so, despite the misconception of some conservatives, there is still Ron Paul who is 100% conservative on all issues including going after bin Laden and his network in Afghanistan and the rest of the world. He has only refused to adopt the revised notion of interventionism as compatible with conservatism. The one that Bush claimed to support when he was inaugurated. The same notion that told us to oppose Clinton’s war against Serbia, which as a by-product helped foster the growth of radical Islam in the Balkans.
Remember how Reagan responded to the terrorist bombing of our embassy in Lebanon? He withdrew the troops and as a result, attacks against Americans stopped. The next round of terrorist attacks against the U.S. didn’t renew until someone had the bright idea of permanently deploying troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. For some strange reason, all of the troops were withdrawn after the 9/11 attacks from the very country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. That is because we know that our military bases there did nothing to stop terrorism.
Terrorism can’t be stopped with conventional military forces. Putting our troops on the ground in Iraq just makes them targets. The next terrorist attack against the U.S. is being plotted inside of safe, stable countries and inside of private houses. The only way to fight them is through intelligence gathering and special forces to identify and destroy them quietly. A permanent military occupation of every country in Asia does nothing but drain the treasury and make our troops targets for anyone with a gun.
Ron Paul has never blamed America and has always supported going after those who have attacked us. He has only questioned the current tactics we are employing and for this he has been smeared as a coward and unpatriotic. If you want to send a message to the GOP that we are sick of watered-down conservatism, vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Otherwise your vote will either be considered support for McCain’s ameliorating moderation or the an affirmation of the “progressive” movement’s desire to control every aspect of our economic and social lives.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Mitt Romney Out
So now that Romney is out, McCain is the presumptive heir. Word is Romney plans to run in 2012. I believe Romney has now realized what many have been predicting regarding the country both politically and economically. Economically, we are headed for a serious recession that is likely to last for a few years. This is the cumulative effect of our monetary policies (the Fed, the tax code, inflation, devaluation, take your pick...). Whoever becomes our next president will preside over an economy worse than he one under Carter's administration. It will, through no fault of their own, make the next president and one termer and confine them to being one of the worst presidents in American history.
I think Romney is also reading the writing on the walls with regard to the voting numbers. A look a Missouri, the supposed bellwether of the country, the Democrats are showing up in numbers by a 3/2 margin over Republican voters. This does not bode will for the eventual nominee since the two leading democrats are virtually identical in the campaign platforms. In the meantime, Republicans have a fairly wide range of choices, but they don't care. They are sick of the establishment and will not likely show up in the fall or, quite possible, may vote for the democrat. The number of voters though is just one indication. The other is the amount of money that is being generated by small donations. That money is going overwhelmingly to Obama, somewhat to Clinton, and, on the GOP side, the media-marginalized Ron Paul candidacy. Small money donations are otherwise not going to the GOP. This is a sign that no one really believes in the GOP in any significant numbers to put their money behind it.
In short, the democrat cannot help but win this fall. I still think it will be Hillary, but Obama has a lot going for him now. Either way, the media will make McCain and his platform look old and tired. I can see a slogan like the "3rd term of the Bush Administration" being used derisively by democrats. GHWB campaigned as Reagan's 3rd term. Many republicans, most independents, and every democrat do not want a 3rd term. The funniest part is that if they use that slogan, McCain will probably adamantly argue against it since he despises Bush. He will have to both align himself with and distance himself from the Bush administration to get elected since the only remaining loyal Republicans are the one's who think that nothing has gone wrong in the last eight years with conservatism in the GOP. The rest of us woke up to reality a long time ago.
I think Romney is also reading the writing on the walls with regard to the voting numbers. A look a Missouri, the supposed bellwether of the country, the Democrats are showing up in numbers by a 3/2 margin over Republican voters. This does not bode will for the eventual nominee since the two leading democrats are virtually identical in the campaign platforms. In the meantime, Republicans have a fairly wide range of choices, but they don't care. They are sick of the establishment and will not likely show up in the fall or, quite possible, may vote for the democrat. The number of voters though is just one indication. The other is the amount of money that is being generated by small donations. That money is going overwhelmingly to Obama, somewhat to Clinton, and, on the GOP side, the media-marginalized Ron Paul candidacy. Small money donations are otherwise not going to the GOP. This is a sign that no one really believes in the GOP in any significant numbers to put their money behind it.
In short, the democrat cannot help but win this fall. I still think it will be Hillary, but Obama has a lot going for him now. Either way, the media will make McCain and his platform look old and tired. I can see a slogan like the "3rd term of the Bush Administration" being used derisively by democrats. GHWB campaigned as Reagan's 3rd term. Many republicans, most independents, and every democrat do not want a 3rd term. The funniest part is that if they use that slogan, McCain will probably adamantly argue against it since he despises Bush. He will have to both align himself with and distance himself from the Bush administration to get elected since the only remaining loyal Republicans are the one's who think that nothing has gone wrong in the last eight years with conservatism in the GOP. The rest of us woke up to reality a long time ago.
Friday, February 1, 2008
CNN and media bias
"With former First Lady Nancy Reagan looking on, Paul disagreed with President Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice, while Huckabee and McCain declined to say whether they would have tapped her for a spot on the high court.
Romney said he "would rather have" a different kind of justice on the bench."
CNN article
Notice how they couldn't just say Ron Paul said her appointment was a bad decision, but that he had the insensitivity to say it in front of Nancy Reagan. For all we know she would agree with that opinion, but the point is to make him look heartless in giving an honest opinion. McCain and Huckabee of course don't answer the question because people don't want answers to questions. That's not the point of a debate.
However, Romney, who also gave something close to same answer is quoted as basically saying it was a bad idea. Apparently Nancy Reagan wasn't in the room though when he gave his answer.
Also, if you look at the article, their are links to the CNN web site for each presidential candidate from the body of the article as they are named. One is missing however. Can you guess which one?
Romney said he "would rather have" a different kind of justice on the bench."
CNN article
Notice how they couldn't just say Ron Paul said her appointment was a bad decision, but that he had the insensitivity to say it in front of Nancy Reagan. For all we know she would agree with that opinion, but the point is to make him look heartless in giving an honest opinion. McCain and Huckabee of course don't answer the question because people don't want answers to questions. That's not the point of a debate.
However, Romney, who also gave something close to same answer is quoted as basically saying it was a bad idea. Apparently Nancy Reagan wasn't in the room though when he gave his answer.
Also, if you look at the article, their are links to the CNN web site for each presidential candidate from the body of the article as they are named. One is missing however. Can you guess which one?
Monday, January 7, 2008
Ron Paul excluded
Fox News: "We decide what you decide."
The excuse for excluding Ron Paul is that there wasn't enough room at the table. Give me a break. The good thing for Ron Paul is that the five of them looked like kids who were being punished for making to much racket by running all around the house. Sit down and keep your hands to yourselves! It may even be what shot up his polling numbers to 14% (3rd in that poll) although that may just be an anomaly. He is still landing somewhere around 8%. Ahead of Fred Thompson in all polls, ahead of Giuliani about 60% of the time, and behind Huckabee about 80% of the time, but still close.
So here is what grinds my gears. Bob Novak's predictions for the race are as follows:
1st Place: McCain, but vulnerable.
2nd Place: Romney, but rallying.
3rd Place: Huckabee.
4th Place: Giuliani.
5th Place: Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.).
Where is Ron Paul? Just because Fox News has banished him, he is still going to be ahead of Fred Thompson tomorrow. He has a good chance of beating Giuliani. He may even beat Huckabee since most pundits think he had a poor showing during Sunday's debate.
The interesting thing to see is if the lack of coverage by Fox actually helped him or hurt him. Drudge is reporting that the ABC debates, which did include Ron Paul, had 2 million more viewers than Fox (on a Saturday night no less). New Hampshire is not the bastion of conservatism it used to be and there probably a lot of registered Republicans and independents who don't like Fox for one reason or another. It is quite possible that based on a purely emotional reaction, they will vote for Ron Paul, just to stick it to Fox.
The other question is what independents that are more interested in the Dems will do. It was imagined that a lot would want to get involved either for Obama or Clinton. But now that the bandwagon has started rolling for Obama among democrats, will independents prefer to jump on the bandwagon or stick it to Fox by voting for Ron Paul? That may be an important factor not so much because Ron Paul will run away with a third place finish, but it may be just enough to put him over Huckabee. Fox will look a bit ridiculous then, but who knows what will happen.
We may even see Ron Paul carrying his exclusion as a badge of pride. He has a lot (A LOT) of young supporters, many of whom seem to be a bit on the liberal side and perhaps even hostile to a lot of conservative ideas. Losing Fox may even help them to convince more young people to get on board. Back in the day, I was excited at the idea of a conservative based new network. Nowadays though, they are anything but conservative in ideology. They are conservative only in the preserving the status quo sense.
One other thought. If anyone is the voice of the conservative movement in the U.S. right now (and for quite some time) it is Rush Limbaugh. The only disparaging thing I have heard him say about Ron Paul is that he can't win. He rarely mentions him on the show otherwise, which is fine. So hear is the question. The dems and media LOVE Huckabee, but Rush, Ann Coulter, and others are pulling out all of the stops to derail Huckabee. Rush has said that McCain is not a conservative and has indicated that Romney and Giuliani have some shortcomings in their credentials as well. He seems to think Fred Thompson is a conservative, but not perhaps a shining star.
So what if Huckabee keeps winning as appears likely? Fred Thompson drops out. Where do his votes go? Maybe to Romney or McCain. Giuliani drops out. Where do his votes go? Probably McCain or Romney, but almost certainly not Huckabee. So now the Huckabee juggernaut is riding strong and McCain and Romney are still attacking each other non-stop. One eventually drops out. Where do those votes go? Well, if there is enough animosity, they may go to Huckabee, but what if they went to Paul instead. McCain supporters may not like Ron Paul, but if he has kept himself out of the fray, not attacked anyone, and stayed away from the bible-thumping populism of Huckabee, they may go to Paul. What about if Romney drops out? His supporters are not likely to go to Huckabee either for various reasons. He is not a social conservative; neither is McCain, neither is Giuliani. Would they give Ron Paul a second look to avoid Huckabee? Would they be turned off enough by Huckabee's use of religion to vote for Paul? It's quite possible. What about genuine conservatives? Would they start to have second thoughts after Huckamania dies down? Especially if Rush, Coulter, Will, and anyone else with conservative followings is crying from the high hills: this is no conservative!? Would they go with Ron Paul who is otherwise a social conservative but also has the fiscal conservative arguments in his favor?
Who knows. Just some thoughts to toss around.
The excuse for excluding Ron Paul is that there wasn't enough room at the table. Give me a break. The good thing for Ron Paul is that the five of them looked like kids who were being punished for making to much racket by running all around the house. Sit down and keep your hands to yourselves! It may even be what shot up his polling numbers to 14% (3rd in that poll) although that may just be an anomaly. He is still landing somewhere around 8%. Ahead of Fred Thompson in all polls, ahead of Giuliani about 60% of the time, and behind Huckabee about 80% of the time, but still close.
So here is what grinds my gears. Bob Novak's predictions for the race are as follows:
1st Place: McCain, but vulnerable.
2nd Place: Romney, but rallying.
3rd Place: Huckabee.
4th Place: Giuliani.
5th Place: Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.).
Where is Ron Paul? Just because Fox News has banished him, he is still going to be ahead of Fred Thompson tomorrow. He has a good chance of beating Giuliani. He may even beat Huckabee since most pundits think he had a poor showing during Sunday's debate.
The interesting thing to see is if the lack of coverage by Fox actually helped him or hurt him. Drudge is reporting that the ABC debates, which did include Ron Paul, had 2 million more viewers than Fox (on a Saturday night no less). New Hampshire is not the bastion of conservatism it used to be and there probably a lot of registered Republicans and independents who don't like Fox for one reason or another. It is quite possible that based on a purely emotional reaction, they will vote for Ron Paul, just to stick it to Fox.
The other question is what independents that are more interested in the Dems will do. It was imagined that a lot would want to get involved either for Obama or Clinton. But now that the bandwagon has started rolling for Obama among democrats, will independents prefer to jump on the bandwagon or stick it to Fox by voting for Ron Paul? That may be an important factor not so much because Ron Paul will run away with a third place finish, but it may be just enough to put him over Huckabee. Fox will look a bit ridiculous then, but who knows what will happen.
We may even see Ron Paul carrying his exclusion as a badge of pride. He has a lot (A LOT) of young supporters, many of whom seem to be a bit on the liberal side and perhaps even hostile to a lot of conservative ideas. Losing Fox may even help them to convince more young people to get on board. Back in the day, I was excited at the idea of a conservative based new network. Nowadays though, they are anything but conservative in ideology. They are conservative only in the preserving the status quo sense.
One other thought. If anyone is the voice of the conservative movement in the U.S. right now (and for quite some time) it is Rush Limbaugh. The only disparaging thing I have heard him say about Ron Paul is that he can't win. He rarely mentions him on the show otherwise, which is fine. So hear is the question. The dems and media LOVE Huckabee, but Rush, Ann Coulter, and others are pulling out all of the stops to derail Huckabee. Rush has said that McCain is not a conservative and has indicated that Romney and Giuliani have some shortcomings in their credentials as well. He seems to think Fred Thompson is a conservative, but not perhaps a shining star.
So what if Huckabee keeps winning as appears likely? Fred Thompson drops out. Where do his votes go? Maybe to Romney or McCain. Giuliani drops out. Where do his votes go? Probably McCain or Romney, but almost certainly not Huckabee. So now the Huckabee juggernaut is riding strong and McCain and Romney are still attacking each other non-stop. One eventually drops out. Where do those votes go? Well, if there is enough animosity, they may go to Huckabee, but what if they went to Paul instead. McCain supporters may not like Ron Paul, but if he has kept himself out of the fray, not attacked anyone, and stayed away from the bible-thumping populism of Huckabee, they may go to Paul. What about if Romney drops out? His supporters are not likely to go to Huckabee either for various reasons. He is not a social conservative; neither is McCain, neither is Giuliani. Would they give Ron Paul a second look to avoid Huckabee? Would they be turned off enough by Huckabee's use of religion to vote for Paul? It's quite possible. What about genuine conservatives? Would they start to have second thoughts after Huckamania dies down? Especially if Rush, Coulter, Will, and anyone else with conservative followings is crying from the high hills: this is no conservative!? Would they go with Ron Paul who is otherwise a social conservative but also has the fiscal conservative arguments in his favor?
Who knows. Just some thoughts to toss around.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Cal Thomas, kool-aid drinker
Cal Thomas on the Presidential Debates
The Republicans, who rarely mention the president, agree that Hillary Clinton would be a bad president and each could fight terrorists better than any Democrat, except for Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone.
OK, I'll admit it. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. This article really isn't about Ron Paul, but it should be. The quoted statement above should be "Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone without a declaration of war". So apparently people like Cal Thomas who like to give a pretense of loving the Constitution at every turn and use it whenever they need a handy tool to decry someone else's opinion, pretty much ignore it if they are in favor of any policy that clearly violates the Constitution. Policies, for example, of invading foreign countries without a declaration of war from Congress. Remember that Ron Paul introduced a bill calling for a letter of marque to be issued against bin Laden shortly after 9/11. Here is one blog calling this "wacky" - apparently they haven't read the Constitution either.
So Cal Thomas in this article has the same complaint as a lot of people watching the presidential debate. This is a collection of meaningless sound-bites from polished C+ students seeing who can promise the most government handouts. The point he is misses is that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either forum whose platform is taking away benefits and abolishing segments of the government that both take away and hand out taxpayer money. How Cal Thomas missed this is anyone's guess.
The Republicans, who rarely mention the president, agree that Hillary Clinton would be a bad president and each could fight terrorists better than any Democrat, except for Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone.
OK, I'll admit it. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. This article really isn't about Ron Paul, but it should be. The quoted statement above should be "Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone without a declaration of war". So apparently people like Cal Thomas who like to give a pretense of loving the Constitution at every turn and use it whenever they need a handy tool to decry someone else's opinion, pretty much ignore it if they are in favor of any policy that clearly violates the Constitution. Policies, for example, of invading foreign countries without a declaration of war from Congress. Remember that Ron Paul introduced a bill calling for a letter of marque to be issued against bin Laden shortly after 9/11. Here is one blog calling this "wacky" - apparently they haven't read the Constitution either.
So Cal Thomas in this article has the same complaint as a lot of people watching the presidential debate. This is a collection of meaningless sound-bites from polished C+ students seeing who can promise the most government handouts. The point he is misses is that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either forum whose platform is taking away benefits and abolishing segments of the government that both take away and hand out taxpayer money. How Cal Thomas missed this is anyone's guess.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)