Featured posts 02 Aug 2007 08:02 am
Go vote in this poll…Ron paul can win!
David sent me this poll today; when I voted, Ron was second, behind Fred Thompson…who, correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t officially running yet? All I’ve heard about him is that he’s a republican actor from Tennessee. As Mr. Darcy famously said in pride & prejudice, “Ah, but not handsome enough to tempt me.” :-). Sure the guy can act and is good looking, but in a field of men saying essentially the same thing as one another, which is essentially maintaining our national status quo, I’m still inspired for the candidate committed to the most change, revolution, and return to our national priorities.
Voting in this poll is easy and anonymous.
on 02 Aug 2007 at 9:25 am 1.Mark said …
Fairly new to your blog, and thoroughly enjoying it.
Have seen a number of entries about Ron Paul. I’m from Texas, so am somewhat familiar with Ron. Interesting candidate. He has some good ideas but tends to take them to ridiculous extremes. I remember a debate here a number of years ago where there was a question about gun control. Ron is (or at least was)adamantly anti gun control. In the extreme. Believed that people should be able to own anti-aircraft missiles.
Personally, I think that the people that can afford to spend $100,000 on a single stinger missile aren’t the sort of people I want to have one. He may have tempered this thoughts on this in recent years. Have to admit that I haven’t given him much serious consideration since that debate response.
You write that you are looking for a change from the status quo, but only seem to be looking at Republican candidates. May I ask why? I’m giving serious consideration to the Democratic field this election cycle.
on 02 Aug 2007 at 10:20 am 2.Tia said …
Hi Mark~ I’m glad you took time to comment. I am looking at Ron himself, more than within a particular party. Before finding him, I was considering the dems more…because the environment and the war are two of my biggest concerns. But no one was really exciting me over there either and I’m very pro-life so I had issues with all of them on that. I think Ron has a good track record with support all over congress (both sides find him someone they can work with) and he is getting national support from every party. Also, I think his entrance into the greater conversation will spur more candidates like him on every level below the oval office.
I don’t agree with everything Ron says but I do agree either with most of it, or the driving motivation behind it (get the fed out of many of the realms they’re messing up). I know there is NO candidate that anyone will agree with 100%. What Ron is definitely not is “more of the same” and “inconsistent”. In other words, I believe he’s worth my effort.
Before finding Ron, I had pretty much consigned myself to being apolitical, and our national outlook as hopeless…an arena not worth effort or concern as *coping with* their fallout takes enough of my hard work!
Does that answer your question? I’m trying not to talk too much just about Ron, as he (and politics) is not the focus of the place. He does, however, excite me, and so I sometimes bubble over :-).
on 02 Aug 2007 at 10:44 am 3.Texas Little El said …
Mark, Dr. Paul has never said that its okay to own anti aircraft missiles for the same reason that he has said that individuals should never own nukes.
Collateral damage is far to easy with either one.
You might be thinking of Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party saying something like that but never, Rep. Paul.
Why people keep saying these things I have no idea.
on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:08 pm 4.Mark said …
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I’ll have to give Ron another look.
Texas Little El, I will be the first to admit that I may remember incorrectly who the person espousing the “if you can build it you can shoot it” view. It was 15 years ago when I first moved back to Texas and was briefly flirting with the Libertarian party. At the very least, I’m glad to hear that his views on the subject today are that we need some limits.
I’ll have to give Ron some serious consideration. In general, I came away from the Libertarian party feeling — particularly for the hard core of the party, certainly not everyone — that they lacked (1) a little compassion, and (2) a little common sense.
I’ll admit to complete uncertainty about the ‘08 elections. We’ve got to make some major changes in policy — domestic and foreign. We’ve got to address some looming problems such as global warming, energy, and unaffordable health care, and we need to retake our government from corporate America.
So far I don’t hear much from anyone that I like. Ron Paul has some good sound bites, as does Barak Obama. I’ll give a good look at Paul’s positions but I am concerned that he doesn’t have the institutional political power to accomplish much. Obama seems to be lacking in experience — he might be an attractive candidate in a few years after we know more about him and he has had a chance to accomplish something.
Mostly, not excited about any of my choices yet. Tia, your enthusiasm for Ron Paul is nice to see. You should be happy that it is going to make me take a second, hard look.
on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:16 pm 5.Tia said …
Great reply Mark. What more can anyone ask than for a second look? For me, Ron excites me the most when I hear him speak….I feel so much honesty and authenticity from him. For better or for worse, he believes what he says and he’s willing to stand by it. I’m delighted you are willing to look more closely and may more follow in your lead.
on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:20 pm 6.Mark said …
BTW, what is Ron’s position on abortion?
I will say that in watching the Republican debates, Ron Paul is the only one on the stage that seems at all authentic. He does seem to actually believe what he is saying … it isn’t just some “policy” crafted by “handlers” who spend all their time polling interest groups.
Of course, lots of people thought the same about Bush in 2000 and look where that’s gotten us. Oy.
on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:29 pm 7.Mark said …
Tia:
I know that this conversation is way off topic for your blog (nice graphics, btw).
However, you said that the environment and the Iraq war were two of your big concerns. I would love to know more about your thoughts on these two subjects. Why concerned, how concerned, what do you think is wrong, what do you think we should be doing differently?
on 02 Aug 2007 at 1:23 pm 8.Tia said …
Mark, Ron is very pro-life; he tells a story that as a young med student he watched a late term abortion..a crying, breathing baby placed in a bucket. Made an impact.
the short answer on my environmental and war concerns: have been against the Iraq war since the beginning. I’m very concerned that America has become a “bully” and “bad neighbor”…Ron says we should stop spreading our “goodness with guns” and I agree. On the environment: I think if we stopped a lot of the government sanctioned, subsidised, and promoted HARM, we’d make huge strides. Ideally (and not necessary how Ron would do it, as he’s for small government), I’d like the environment protected more aggressively, and corporations encouraged (financially) to make greener choices….perhaps scaling back on the size of government and giving people back their money is one way to stimulate that, in less obvious, less direct way than making more laws about it. You’ll get more of a flavor for what I think about that in my archives, should you have time to peruse them.
Also, Ron is against government regulation of the internet, which is our last source of free speech. This issue is HUGE for me.
on 02 Aug 2007 at 4:32 pm 9.Mark said …
must strongly agree with the internet / free speech issue. huge for me as well. a few large media concerns already control most of our media outlets (hello murdoch and wsj purchase). i think that they are afraid of the internet. and they should be. we got to keep this as a free speech zone or we are screwed.
sounds as if we mostly agree on the war and environment. both are big concerns of mine. nice to hear from someone else who opposed the war from the start. i remember at the time looking around me at all the gung-ho war supporters (though i didn’t notice them enlisting) and having one of those alice through the looking-glass moments. it was a strange time. i like dr. paul’s “can’t spread goodness with guns” phrase. the bloodlust of my fellow citizens at the time was frightening and eye-opening to me. i think people are starting to sober up. finally.
one of my concerns with the entire republican field is the constant beating of the “lower taxes” drum. we’ve been “cutting taxes” for years now and it seems that the only people who get the tax cuts are the super rich and the mega corporations. meanwhile, we can’t afford to fix our bridges so that they don’t collapse. i’d much rather hear a candidate talk about fair and responsible taxation. if that means lower taxes for some (poor working families) and raising taxes for others (muilit-billionaire hedge fund managers), well so what. i don’t care about “lower taxes” in the abstract. i don’t care about lowering taxes for paris hilton and haliburton corporation. i worry about working families struggling to make ends meet. i worry about our elderly. i worry about children born into poverty.
i’m kinda afraid that the refusal to deal with the situation in iraq (not to mention getting us there in the first place) and the push for even more tax cuts (which will end up mostly for the rich) in a time of dramatically increased spending, and utter failure on environmental issues (uh, global warming anyone?) are three things that will make it hard for me to pull the lever for a republican this go-round. we’ll see where we end up after we have some candidates.
have enjoyed the discussion.
on 02 Aug 2007 at 4:42 pm 10.Tia said …
Mark, see if you can get your hands on a film called, America: From Freedom to Fascism. It really has a lot to say about taxes and where our money goes, versus where we think it goes. It also goes into the fact (heavily) that there is no law on the books that requires Americans to file and pay income taxes (and said income tax goes to pay debt…not for stuff we think it does). Yesterday I found a site (will have to look it up) that showed how Ron’s plan to eliminate the income tax is doable by cutting the budget by one third. And cutting it by one third is to take our spending back down to where it was just in 2000! Ron is for all the things we think we pay taxes for in philosophy..but he thinks they’ll be more successfully done in a free market rather that with a government who makes everything too big, too inefficient, and tends to botch it up in general.
He also has some stellar things to say about the poor and middle class and the “inflation tax”…I get goosebumps thinking about how stimulated the economy will become if we get to keep our money! I don’t think it would trigger hoarding but rather spending and creativity and ultimately the beginning of freedom from a “government has to do it for me” mentality. Government only has to do it for me if they’ve taxed me to death and crippled me…let me keep what I earn and I can do it myself.
Great convo today. thanks!
on 03 Aug 2007 at 7:52 am 11.Brian Glass said …
I’m a Fred fan myself.
Ron Paul has some interesting ideas. I’m highly in favor of a minimalist government. My main point of difference with him is on the war. While Bush has made some significant blunders (e.g. Harriet Miers, immigration reform, Dubai Ports), I think he’s done the right thing on the war. His administration’s main mistake was not committing enough military resources to the war to begin with.
Mobs have short memories. Shortly after the 9/11 disaster people were united in preparation for an extended war on terror. How soon we forget that. We’re like the children of Israel in the desert who constantly forgot what it was like living in slavery in Egypt. If we pull out of Iraq and ignore reality, we’ll have a huge disaster on our hands.
As for the environment, I think we have a responsibility to take care of our land and our earth, but I also think the left has trumped up bogus “science” (i.e. man-made global warming) in an attempt to scare us into it. I’m far more concerned about pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and that sort of thing than carbon emissions.
on 03 Aug 2007 at 8:29 am 12.Tia said …
Hi Brian~ I actually am/was pro-going after the terrorists…but I don’t agree that going into Iraq, nor how we did it, was an honest part of that. I’m not forgetting 9/11 at all; and yes indeed, we will leave a mess in Iraq no matter what we do. Might as well let those sons and fathers (and mothers and sisters and daughters) live and come home.
If Fred doesn’t run, or doesn’t win the primary, who is your next choice? Does his hesitancy to declare intentions bother you at all?
on 03 Aug 2007 at 9:39 am 13.Mark said …
Tia:
You are the most polite blog host.
I’m afraid I’m not as polite myself.
To the tax discussion, although I’ve not seen the video, I am familiar with it. I’ve been looking at our tax structure for years and know that there is no law requiring that we pay taxes. I’ve gone back-and-forth on tax issues, but have come around to the thought that we need a flat tax. You pay X% of your income. Everyone. No exceptions.
Easy.
Income x X% = Tax
No deductions.
One of the greatest benefits of this is that we take away a large, large amount of power from our representatives in Washington (good thing). No more tax breaks for special interest groups. No more special deals for this or that project. No more “incentives” for the senator’s sister’s husband’s friend’s daughter’s land deal (with $90K cash kickbacks in the freezer, of course).
I spent some time on Dr. Paul’s web site early this morning. Some nice statements on his “issues” page — and lots I agreed with, and some that I didn’t — but honestly, I wanted more policy. Realize, however, that at this stage in the process, policy is a detriment to a candidate.
Didn’t see anything on his site about eliminating the income tax. He does talk about lower taxes. As I’ve said, I don’t care about the “lower taxes” rhetoric, I’m more concerned about fairer taxes. If we eliminate the income tax, where will the federal govt get its money? I do believe that there is a legitimate role (somewhat limited) for government to play, and as citizens, we have to provide funds to pay for that. I’ll have to do some research to see what proportion of federal income comes from income taxes vs. other sources.
Brian: I think that everyone in this country, regardless of political affiliation, was all for going after the 9/11 terrorists. Some of us just think that the Iraq misadventure was the wrong way to go about it. If we leave Iraq, YES, we’ll have a huge disaster.
We’ve been there for years and we have one now.
We can stay there for many more years and we will still have a huge disaster.
What are your solutions? I would honestly love to hear them. We aren’t getting any out of Washington.
What is the reality that we are ignoring? I believe that the Middle East is a culture so fundamentally different from our own. I don’t believe that we are going to be able to foment change in the near term. And by the near term I am thinking many decades, not the next election cycle.
“Stay the course” isn’t a solution. We’ve been “staying the course” for years and the only thing that changes is the cost to our nation in blood and money.
And our families — my family — is paying the price. My family has paid the price in blood. I wish I thought that it was worth it.
on 03 Aug 2007 at 10:00 am 14.Mark said …
One of my concerns with DRP (Dr. Ron Paul) is that he is facing an entrenched and well-funded opposition.
I read recently* that when RR came into office there were less than 500 registered lobbyists in DC. Now, we have over 35,000.
(*read this online at a reputable web site: NYT, WSJ, LATimes … one of those. Don’t remember the exact numbers, but I’m close, and certainly in terms of proportion. Don’t know if the source is correct, however. I could be completely off on this one.)
DRP is going against lots of people who have a vested interest in the status quo.
Not sure how he is going to be able to do that.
on 03 Aug 2007 at 11:36 am 15.Brian Glass said …
Tia, it doesn’t bother me that Fred hasn’t announced yet. I think some of it has to do with campaign finance laws and the current season of Law and Order. I heard some rumors about that. At any rate, I’m quite certain he’s going to run and may actually be wise to wait a little longer.
Mark, the invasion of Afghanistan was not the success it was made out to be in the press. Much of Al’Qaida escaped that attack. Invading Iraq was a strategic necessity in order to pressure the Saudis to cut funding for Al’Qaida. Additionally, I believe that Saddam Hussein was assisting Al’Qaida (though many deny it). There was a real fear that Al’Qaida had nukes or was close to acquiring some after 9/11. While it did put us in a harder place than was expected, Al’Qaida has been greatly weakened because of our efforts there.
The big disaster would be a lopsided balance of power in the region favoring Iran. Right now we are holding them off (I’m not entirely opposed to military action against Iran either). With patience, things will stabilize in Iraq and we can move out. (even the NYT, a bastion of left-wing anti-war sentiment, has admitted that the troop surge is starting to work).
If you put this war into perspective with wars throughout history, the loss of American life is relatively tiny. Estimates for World War II place American military deaths at 400,000.
I thank your family’s hero veteran for the price paid.
on 03 Aug 2007 at 4:17 pm 16.Tia said …
Mark, I guess we’ll learn something from this election….like in the last one, how we saw that the popular vote ain’t everything…we’ll see if it’s the people or the lobbyists who run the country.
‘course…just thinking out loud…I don’t see why the said lobbyists can’t redirect their energies elsewhere to accomplish that goal.
Brian, there are so many ideas about the war, and where it should go, and what we’re really doing with it…but for me, myself, and I (along with my vote and my taxdollars) think that there are more productive ways to bring about change. There’s more ways to get what we want than with guns and force. And, in the end, I’d like to see America admit to a level of personal responsibility (a theme I hold to across many parts of the spectrum of life) instead of always villifying those who don’t do what we want, respond with subservience, or whom strike back. jmho.
on 03 Aug 2007 at 4:47 pm 17.Mark said …
well said, tia.
on 03 Aug 2007 at 7:42 pm 18.Mark said …
Brian:
You stated: “Much of Al’Qaida escaped that attack. Invading Iraq was a strategic necessity in order to pressure the Saudis to cut funding for Al’Qaida. Additionally, I believe that Saddam Hussein was assisting Al’Qaida (though many deny it). There was a real fear that Al’Qaida had nukes or was close to acquiring some after 9/11. While it did put us in a harder place than was expected, Al’Qaida has been greatly weakened because of our efforts there.”
Would be interested to know the basis for your claims on these matters.
on 07 Aug 2007 at 2:15 pm 19.Mimi said …
What a fascinating discussion in the comments - even though I come from a very different political position.
on 24 Aug 2007 at 11:22 am 20.Brian Glass said …
Tia,
As the book of Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for war and a time for peace. Yes, it is always better if you can solve a problem without war, but sometimes you have to speak the language of those with whom you are dealing. There simply is not always a peaceful solution. You have to weigh the costs of not taking action against the costs of taking it. In this case I believe the costs of not taking action were higher.
Mark,
While much of what I said can be garnered by reading past news articles, a good place to start is George Friedman’s book:
http://www.americassecretwar.com/