Should I choose Ron Paul over Hillary?
Looks like the press is no longer enamored of Rudy, based on the grilling he got at the debate tonight. (On Meet the Press earlier, he called for Secret Service protection for his mistresses, hookers and boyfriends)
But the way Ron Paul took a strong position in a crowd he knew would be hostile to it really impressed me. Now it’s not likely Paul will be the GOP nominee, but if he were to run a third party campaign and Hillary was the Dem nominee, who would I vote for?
I’d definitely take a good look at Paul now. I know he’s got some ideas that don’t square with me, but frankly, Hillary offers me zero. Taking off my partisan wings, if I ask “what does Hillary offer that could motivate me to get off my ass and vote”, the answer, again, is zero.
Ron Paul offers more than zero. I’d definitely consider him.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:54 am
“Should I choose Ron Paul over Hillary?”
Um, no.
Emphatically not. unless you seek the kind of Federal Government envisioned by the Federalist Society/Club for Growth/State’s Rights types.
Don’t get me wrong–I don’t find many of Hillary’s policies to my liking. I would prefer she not end up the Democtratic nominee. But if she does, and RP goes 3rd party, a vote for him is more or less a vote for Ralph Nader.
And look where that got us, thanks to all the well-intentioned progressives who thought Al Gore was no better than George W. Bush. Sheesh.
The lesser of two evils is still evil, but still far better than ending up with the worse evil as a result of voting for a third party.
.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Isn’t he, like, a racist, n’ stuff?
Just askin’
:o)
December 10th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Paul is putting himself out there for all to see. Watch the Bill Moyers interview when Bill was still with “Now”. Go google Paul with Bill Maher. Go to his site (not the election site) and see how many speeches he has made. Read them!
Jack-Booted EULA Says: Isn’t he, like, a racist, n’ stuff? I am not sure that is true. Paul is a conservative. He doesn’t express racist commentary in his congressional speeches. I think that as a true or objective Conservative his ideas are in opposition to the idea of Progressive government and that is the disagreement that we could have with him. I(we) grew up in a society that took progressivism for granted. My definition of Progressivism is: using the Government to fix the obvious problems of our society by voting in laws and amendments to make corrections and taxing the people, and using the money to repair the problems.
There is no clear example of a presidential leader that was a pure progressive. The examples of presidential progressives would include Abraham Lincoln eliminating slavery, but he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. (kind of like our current idiot for a president), Teddy Roosevelt and his “square Deal” and his conservationist policies. That was progressivism, but he was also a macho hawk, got us into wars (like our current idiot for a president. A lot of conservative and progressive presidents were anti-trust in nature. Taft created the the FTC, Harding sucked, Coolidge sucked but then along came FDR and the “New Deal”, Social Security, labor laws, the WPA, Public housing act, and on and on. Now that’s progressivism. And all of it stuck. But you know what, FDR was an isolationist, just like Ron Paul. Lyndon Johnson tried to outdo Roosevelt with his “Great Society” But just like the current schmuck GWB, he had to prove that the US could kick the little guy in the ass and it backfired. Nixon had to complete the Progressive agenda that LBJ started and he had to end the war that Kennedy started.
Do you see where I am going with this in regards to Paul. Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced progressive policies and they have also been war mongers. Paul is an interesting man because his honesty is out there. He doesn’t think the government should be so involved in controlling what is going wrong in this country so progressives aren’t going to like him much, but he is anti-war. Intellectually, and objectively he opposes war because we don’t need