December 28, 2007
I have spent the better part of this week writing on behalf of Dr. Ron Paul. I did so because it became apparent that the powers that be were becoming scared and they started a malicious smear campaign against him to try and stop the momentum he has generated. I do not mind having a rational discourse about why one candidate would be better than another; that is what the process should be about. But when the machine that wishes to keep the status quo starts distorting the truth to achieve their ends; that is where I feel responsible to at least set the record straight so the debate can be fair. The ensuing debate after each article has been vigorous to say the least. I realized tonight though when reading the article by Joel Hirschorn what has been missing from the debate, alternatives.
Now let’s be fair up front. Dennis Kucinich is a principled guy. I really believe he is as honest as a politician can be. I would love to see a general election between the big government Kucinich against the limited government Paul. I also would like to hit lotto and probably have a better chance of that then seeing Kucinich in the general election. I felt the same way about Paul at the beginning but you cannot ignore his rise in the rigged polls and his fundraising from the grassroots level. I have heard a lot of people trying to wish Paul away but it simply has not happened. When you see the negative attacks orchestrated by the machine against him, you have to realize that he has become a viable threat now. So please, do not offer Dennis Kucinich as a viable alternative to Ron Paul. It is simply fantasyland.
That said, I will present why I find Dr. Paul to be intriguing as a candidate. First, he is clearly against the war and using war as a foreign policy. A Paul presidency would guarantee and end to the Iraq War and prevent the GOP dream of an Iran War. No more of our kids would die unnecessarily. The money being wasted abroad would be diverted to concerns about America. I like that. That makes sense to me. Secondly, he is virulently opposed to the consolidation of executive power and the resulting erosion of civil liberties. A Paul presidency would see the return of habeas corpus, a restoration of civil liberties, an end to the Patriot Act, and a return to proper checks and balances. War powers would return to the Congress where they belong. Torture as policy would end. Illegal wiretapping and data mining would end. That all makes sense to me. I like that. Thirdly, Dr. Paul seems to be one of the only people in government who understands the looming currency disaster we are facing. The nine trillion dollar debt would be paid down, primarily through the money no longer spent blowing other countries up. Sure, Halliburton would take a hit but overall Dr. Paul understands that empires collapse financially and that is where we are heading if we do not do something about it. I know that the other democratic candidates are busy promising all the nice “progressive” bonanzas we have been hoping for but you cannot have universal healthcare if you are broke. You especially cannot fund everything you want if you cannot even promise to pull troops out of Iraq. I am sorry but stabilizing our currency makes sense to me and yes, I like that.
Now there are some areas of a Paul presidency that I still would have questions about. Those questions would be answered during the general election campaigns and debates. More importantly though is we must understand how our government works. Just because Ron Paul believes in limited government, he would be forced to come to the center with Congress to get anything done and I am confident he would. The doom and gloom crowd pretends that as soon as he is sworn in he will eliminate all functions of the federal government. He can’t folks! He would have to work with Congress. But at least he would be moving to the center coming from the position that war as policy must end, civil liberties must be restored and we must pay down our debt to stabilize our currency. That is a lot to begin with that he will find plenty of agreement on with Congress.
So there you have it. I think that Dr. Paul is sincere and not owned by any corporations. He believes in his philosophy and does not read from a script. I have heard a lot of naysayers tell me why Dr. Paul is not the right candidate. Some reasons have been thoughtful and others slanderous. I really do not want to rehash that here. Given the state of the country, the three points I outlined about Dr. Paul seem to me to be the most important things we can focus on as Progressives and Americans. So I ask the naysayers to intelligently tell me who they think would make a better candidate. I assume the entire GOP field is out, and rightly so. Dennis Kucinich has zero chance of surviving the primaries and we all know it; so please do not offer up DK. That basically leaves Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Please tell me why any of them would be better for the primary issues discussed in this article or if there is another issue you feel is more important than what has been discussed.
No more smears. No more nonsense. There is too much at stake in 2008. Stay informed.
