But more Americans would lack decent health care. More American children would lack adequate education. More families in America would struggle in poverty. Immigrant families would face increased threats and abuse. Women would have lost rights. And a growing oligarchy would further dominate American politics, making reversal of any admirable Paul policies likely.
Paul arrives at some admirable positions for some unexpected reasons. And his principles lead him to many reprehensible positions as well. He opposes occupying Iraq because it involves massive government expense and power. That, and not the million corpses, is his primary concern.
Paul is brave enough to say what he thinks and stand by it. While there are Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee, who have that same quality, the Democratic Party as a whole has an established reputation of not standing and fighting for anything, and least of all peace.
So, it's not completely surprising that a lot of opponents of the occupation of Iraq are looking to Paul as the best presidential candidate out there. Many Paul supporters really want peace and want it for the best reasons, but they detest the word "liberal" and loathe "big government." Others are not quite in that camp but consider the war such an overwhelmingly important issue that they don't much care what Paul's other positions are.
But Paul would end the occupation of Iraq and offer the Iraqi people not a dime to help rebuild the nation we've destroyed. In fact, he would cut the pittance we give in foreign aide around the world. But Paul has never, to my knowledge, said he would cut a single dollar from the biggest big government expense there is, much bigger than any war: the yearly budget of the Pentagon. And if he thinks he can keep funding that and NOT launch new wars, he hasn't thought about the workings of our government quite enough.
So, a Paul government would be stingy, extravagant, war-prone despite itself, and in debt. Would Paul solve that problem be reinstating progressive taxation for the super wealthy and corporations? No, he'd cut taxes. Of course, taxes SHOULD be cut for most people. But unless they're raised for the wealthy and corporations, we will have even more debt (which Paul says he opposes) or we will have to make massive cuts in what's left of the non-military public sector. And that's exactly what Paul would like to see: "wasteful agencies" and "governments collecting foreign aid" are among his targets. Rather than increasing funding for public schools, his solution for education would be to cut more taxes (the thinking being that this would allow parents to teach their children at home). That works for parents who want to do that and don't have to work. But most parents don't want to do that and do have to work. And with a president Paul allowing the minimum wage to plummet, opposing living wage standards, and doing nothing to restore the right to unionize, parents' work hours would not be shrinking.
Of course parents who don't work, or don't work jobs with good benefits, tend to lack health insurance. Paul would offer these tens of millions of Americans and the even greater number with inadequate health insurance nothing more than a middle finger. Paul believes the greatest crisis in our health care is the imposition of vaccinations. Everything always comes back to his notion of personal "freedom," even if it's the freedom to die of a curable disease. The only solution that has been found to provide everyone decent health care – in fact it works in almost every industrialized nation in the world – would mean private medicine, allowing everyone to choose their own doctor, but would also mean replacing the health insurance companies with the government. This is the last thing Paul would ever stand for. Better that people suffer and die than that the government be involved in helping them.
Women who value the right to abortion would lose it under a Paul Administration. This is not speculation. He openly says he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's his principle and he stands by it courageously and honestly, but most Americans disagree with him.
Life would change dramatically for all Americans under this sort of right-wing rule, but much more so for immigrants. Paul would allow fewer legal immigrants, while denying any illegal immigrants a path to become citizens. An immigrant woman here without papers who was raped would be denied the right to an abortion. Her child, born in America, would be denied citizenship. Her family would be denied welfare, as well as health care, and education, not to mention any investment in public transportation. Undocumented workers would gain no workplace rights under a Paul government, and so the rights of all of us would continue to erode. In fact, immigrants would be scapegoated and associated with 9-11, and Paul's priority would be "securing borders."
Under a Paul administration there would be fewer immigrants for a good reason: he opposes the trade policies that destroy the economies of the nations they flee to come here. But Paul opposes those policies because they are international, not because they empower corporations and hurt workers. That's none of his concern. He's a "property rights" man, even if it's at the expense of those without property. He opposes NAFTA for the same reason he opposes the United Nations. He would erode international law far more swiftly than Bush, thereby endangering us all in the long run. International law is what works against wars of aggression.
But if Paul is as major an opponent of justice as I suggest, why then are so many advocates of peace and justice flocking to him? It depends in each case. Many passionately oppose the occupation of Iraq, but they don't call it an occupation. They call it a war. And their chief concern is not the million Iraqis dead, but the nearly four thousand Americans. And (this is key) they don't like the Democrats.
Paul is a man with principles, bizarre and twisted principles, but principles. Beside him, most of the Republicans look like charlatans, and the Democrats who are allowed on television and in the New York Times look like spineless cowards. They look like spineless cowards not because they favor peace (they don't), but because they refuse to stand up to Bush and Cheney. Paul stands up to Bush and Cheney. NOTHING is more powerful than that in today's politics, and he does it. Standing up to Bush and Cheney is what propelled Howard Dean's campaign so rapidly, and few paid close attention to what his positions were either.
Of course, there is a candidate in the 2008 presidential race who stands consistently and courageously on principle for both peace AND justice. And if we had the courage of our convictions we would put everything we have into backing him. Not only might he win, but our backing him now might force the Democrats in Congress to act like they believe in something, and force other candidates to improve their positions. His name is Dennis Kucinich. Paul doesn't want people to give their money to Washington. Give it to http://www.kucinich.us
http://www.davidswanson.org
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
| 26 comments |
|
Agricultural consultant since 1978 working in several regions of the US. Husband and father of seven and dedicated to founding documents of the Rebublic. |
Another reading assignment Even Glenn Beck suggested yesterday that the entire American populous read "The Five Thousand Year Leap" by Skousen. Reagan wanted it required reading in each public school classroom. As much of an enigma as he was he had that much right. May I join in the strongest possible way in commending this and anything of Richard Maybury as well. by
GENESISJIM (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 12:17:37 PM
|
|
Kucinich = Peace but Injustice I like Kucinich, as he is not afraid to say many things that the establishment politicians will not say. However, I have to say that his being an advocate for the status quo regarding entitlements along with his offer to create "universal healthcare" is the epitome of injustice. All of these programs currently are placing a crippling debt on my generation along with that of the children I will have some day and their children. That amounts to exploiting the fruits of labor of people who aren't even here yet. If taking money from people before they are even born isn't injustice, then injustice must not exist. All of the programs since Hoover and FDR have done just that - take from people and their paychecks before they have any say in the matter. The government is $9 trillion in debt, with over $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities... and there are cries for more spending? Forcing current workers to pay for services that they may or may not use/want/need at a given time is bad enough. But taking funds from the future generations is simply reprehensible and unjustified. by
Garry Cobb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Friday, August 31, 2007 at 11:09:55 PM
|
|
twisted travesty of facts The author of this piece has surely shot himself squarely in the foot. Anyone who has studied the positions of Dr. Paul knows these scenarios are entirely fictitous. It's easy to imagine what a REAL Ron Paul presidency would be like by going to www.ronpaul2008.com. It's also evident and apparent the author has not read the Constitution and does not understand what The President is SUPPOSED to do; and NOT supposed to do. When people read your assertations and learn how Ron Paul will solve them, you're actually doing us a favor by converting everyone who can think themselves. It's wacky articles like this that will convert more people to Ron Paul. Thanks! by
tom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Friday, August 31, 2007 at 11:58:16 PM
|
|
|
Architec4Ron Paul Sorry. Not buying it. Ron Paul is not interested in providing government services of any kind. He is a libertarian, which actually means something. by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 6:44:30 AM
|
|
Phillip Mabry is an Electronics Engineer for the United States Government. He enlisted in the United States Navy directly after the events of 9/11. Phillip now writes blogs, articles and opinion pieces on politics, economics and electronics. |
You're wrong You have the Libritarian ideals correct, but Ron Paul is NOT a libritarian. He's a Republican that leans libritarian. There's nothing wrong with that. This article does nothing more than attack Libritarian ideals, then tries to connect them with Ron Paul. He doesn't want to get rid of government, he just wants to put it in it's place. by
Phillip Mabry (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 9:34:43 AM
|
|
A member of Democratic Circles (DemocraticCircles.org), responsible for Internet publicity. A former visitant of UC Santa Cruz, union boilermaker, ex-Marine, Vietnam vet, anti-war activist, dilettante in science with an earth-shaking theory on the nature of light (which no one will consider), philosopher in the tradition of Hegel, Marx, and Fromm (no one listens to that either), author of a book on wine clubs (ahem), and cast-off programmer of ancient computer languages. |
A Federal Libertarian, A States Authoritarian It troubles me that Paul supporters are either unable to recognize, or unwilling to say, that he's just another right-wing states-rightist when he gets off talking about the federal government. He wants to return power to what he calls "the liberty-loving states", those bastions of human liberty (the South) and self-reliance (the square states where big ranchers and mining conglomerates suck on federal land for pennies on the dollar). A federal law banning abortion? Bad. A state law banning abortion? No problem. A federal law enshrining a religion? Bad. A state law enshrining religion? No problem. by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 80 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 11:14:31 AM
|
|
Agricultural consultant since 1978 working in several regions of the US. Husband and father of seven and dedicated to founding documents of the Rebublic. |
Succession from the Union Go read the Constitution, friend. Suceeding was the ultimate bite of the states to restrain federal control. It's a bit like an abused child leaving home. Can you get it? by
GENESISJIM (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 12:05:07 PM
|
|
Know your government The author of this article clearly fails to understand the Federal system of government that our constitution declares this country to be governed by. In our system the federal government does NOT have the right to order the states around, and Ron Paul is only returning to that philosophy which is the foundation of our country. Contrary to what the author suggests, Dr. Paul has NEVER said he wants to abolish public schooling if he was president. Education is a state issue. If anyone feels I have reached that conclusion falsley, please show me where, inthe constituion it grants the federal government the right to regulate education. Immigrants subject to threats and abuse? If that means they are subject to the laws that already exist then yes. All of us are subject to the law, immigrants included, when did crossing the border give exemption from the law? by
grey Monroe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 1:21:07 AM
|
|
I am a 44 year old Harvard Law Graduate. |
This is a total work of fiction Notice how the author makes assertions but cannot back any of them up with any facts at all. He seems to have done all of his research about Ron Paul from soundbites on Fox news and has clearly never read a single thing the man has said. Ron Paul's position on abortion is that it is a state's rights issue. That the Constitution cannot and does not provide the Federal Government a right to interfere with the issue. Therefore, under a Paul administration, the power to deny abortions to the entire country would never again be in the hands of one person or even one court. Women would not have to sweat this issue every time a new president comes to town. Of course Ron Paul would not steal money from Americans to give to the Iraqis. He is a man of principle. He understands that the US Government has no money, if it is going to give money away it must, I repeat must take it from you and me. That is theft and Ron Paul is an honest man. I cannot debate every issue here. If you want facts, not fiction go to the ron paul library. Search for it. I don't think I can put a link here. It ends with dot org. Then look up any topic and see for yourself that this author and the editor of this site have just written a bunch of lies and then published them. This is a total propaganda piece and it sickens me that no one has any integrity anymore. This was not an opinion piece, it was a bunch of lies. Please check out that website for the truth. You will find articles by Dr. Paul, bills he has tried to pass, and perhaps understand why those of us who have done our homework love this guy. He is amazing. Truly. He has voted against every single bill that gives money to the military for offensive actions and this guy writes that he would spend a ton on the Pentagon. Please don't be gullible. Please don't let these tricksters fool you. Please find out for yourself. by
Janet Gifford (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 4:39:53 AM
|
|
Educator, Author, Veteran, Patriot |
Exactly... This opinion piece is the product of a mind that has no understanding of the Constitution, what the Founders intended the role of the federal government to be, or the self-reliance and independence on which this nation was founded. by
Roger Kent (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 7:33:46 AM
|
|
Whether you're signing up to comment, to write articles, to blog -- people like to know a bit about you. Your bio is a place where you can tell people. You can talk about your work , your passions, your family, your activism, your hobbies, your favorites, your age, marital status, beliefs, books you've written, accomplishments in your life, favorite quotations. Have fun with it. (Your bio IS made public. And will appear at the end of articles you submit. It is website policy to NOT permi... |
Speculation presented as truth This is an interesting display of speculation presented as truth. What the author conveniently forgets is that the various programs Dr. Paul puts forward need, for the most part, congressional approval. Paul would certainly not behave like Mr. Bush, who signs executive orders willy-nilly, compromising our freedoms with each stroke of the pen. Dr. Paul would not use executive orders (or so he has stated, as they are un-constitutional). As well, Dr. Paul has no ties to the one world government people, whose influence has created the conflict in the midEast, our meddling into the affairs of other nations and the (likely) North American Union. Actions vary, depending on circumstances, and things change. Good people do the wrong things sometimes. Speculation of this sort is misleading and a pointless self-indulgence. As Adam Schiff (Law & Order) used to growl, "If if if..." by
zenpiper (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 8:38:41 AM
|
|
I am a person who dislikes being required to write a bio. |
This editorial is factually inaccurate
by
Craig Ruuska (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 9:07:11 AM
|
|
American who wants to be proud of this country. Who wants to be able to enjoy life again. Who wants to feel something other than pain, heartache, and total sadness for the atrocities that 'we' as a country have perpetrated on others and on our own. If it smells like shit, it must be shit!We must insist on a new investigation into 9/11. So far, everything this administration has said has been lies......now we need some truth. |
BRAVO ! Thanks for this. I am going to pass this on to ALL my friends and aquaintances who will not listen to me about Ron Paul. If you just read about Dennis Kucinich he is so real, so honest, so loves this country and really cares about us ! He has no hidden agenda. He supports the constitutiion totally, he gives equal rights to everyone (no exceptions), he is as close to being an honest real President as this country could ever hope for. Maybe we need to make more noise, and force people to at least study the man and his ideas. People will find, there is nothing to disagree with. thank you for a wonderful piece. It put Ron Paul in perspective. He is a good man in a lot of ways, but I find him very 18th century in many ways. And we do not need any more presidents who do not respect the will of the people. by
joyce (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 9:25:43 AM
|
|
I repeat, Kucinich = Injustice "If you just read about Dennis Kucinich he is so real, so honest, so loves this country and really cares about us ! He has no hidden agenda. He supports the constitutiion totally, he gives equal rights to everyone (no exceptions), he is as close to being an honest real President as this country could ever hope for." How honest is he about fleecing future generations to pay for his new social programs which include "national" healthcare? Our comptroller general has already noted many times that our government has already over spent/over promised to the tune of $60+ trillion. Is dumping debt like that on the young and future generations "social justice"? by
Garry Cobb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Sunday, September 2, 2007 at 5:43:25 PM
|
|
Strong Ron Paul supporter |
peace injustice and Ron Paul
by
Matthew Miller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 10:23:35 AM
|
|
Bio? Do you really care to know anything about me? |
Progressive neglect Every American owes $235,000 for the reckless spending of our government. It continues to grow but many do not care because they will be dead when our children and grandchildren have to pay. Progressives are not generous people. The buy votes with other peolpe's money (our childrens) without worry of the debt we aquire, the future loss of jobs, or the inflation it causes. The Great Society has basically killed our society. The progressive movement has killed the care for your neighbor attitude that once made our nation strong. No longer will neighbors help neighbors. Progressives will not help someone in New Orleans, care for their aged parents, or even care for our future generations for the debt that we leave them. They ask for a faceless, incompetent bureaucracy to do it for them. I look forward to Ron Paul re-establishing a constitutional government, that doesn't make empty promises, while placing our children in debt. by
RJ Burle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 1:58:12 PM
|
|
Bob Kincaid is a founder and host on the Head-On Radio Network ("The H.O.R.N.), America's Liberal Voice. "Head-On With Bob Kincaid" can be heard every weeknight from 6 to 9 p.m., Eastern at www.headonradionetwork.com Archives are available at www.whiteroseociety.org |
Now hold on there! Are you saying that a PROGRESSIVE failed New Orleans? Are you really? Are you saying that those very same Ayn Rand-esque principles of "business can do it" and "private sector power" that the Bush Admin employed (and of which Paul approves) were somehow the fault of Progressives? Here, in all its glory, is the reason I won't trust Ron Paul or a Ron Paul supporter as far as I could throw him/them. They make stuff up and call it "truth." We've had more than enough of that for the last six + years. Since Libertarians like Paul are all for states' rights, I propose a statute in each state that requires all Libertarians and Republicans to pass a literacy test prior to voting. They can prove their literacy by reading something as simple as a restaurant menu . . . written in Cantonese. They can prove their written literacy by executing their signatures with a fountain pen on a piece of wax paper. Sorry, Libertarians and Repigs. That nasty ol' federal voting rights law will just have to go. Can't be meddiling in the states' rights to control their own elections now, can we? I also propose state laws creating separate but equal facilities for Liberatarians and Repiglicans. Lunch counters, water fountains, medical services. We'll have universal healthcare for decent people, but separate-but-equal medical facilities for Libertarians and Repiglicans that are offered on a strictly pay-as-you-go basis. Bwa-hahahahahahahahaha! Libertarians: pissed off Republicans who want just enough government to protect their right to smoke dope. by
Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 43 comments)
on Sunday, September 2, 2007 at 11:07:11 AM
|
|
Retired, amateur boatbuilder, sailor, musician and long time student of Austrian economics. |
I don't know where to start This article is so far off the wall, one does not know where to start. This article is so inflamatory, so derogetory and so far removed from the truth that it would be my suggestion that Ron Paul consult his attorneys regarding a lawsuit against the author. This article comes uncomfortably close to libel. Ron Paul is a man of good character, an intelligent, thoughful and highly educated man who is thoroughly devoted to the principles of Liberty upon which this nation is founded. To see him described in the manner of this article makes me sick. The author has obviously had absolutely no training in the field of economics. Ron Paul on the other hand is an expert economist with many published articles in the field to his credit. http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=author&Id=392 Paul is also an expert historian, with a deep understanding of the roots of our Republic (NOT democracy). Like the Founding Fathers he understands that power is the root of all evil and that power corrupts. This is why the Founders tried to establish a federal republic in which power would be fragmented, not only among the 3 branches of the Federal government, but between the States and the Federal Government as well. This is the basis of Ron Paul's stand on abortion and many other issues that are not specifically addressed by the Constitution. One of the main things that attracts me to Ron Paul's campaign is his overall approach to issues. Instead of reacting knee-jerk style to a problem, Ron Paul takes a carefully reasoned, investigative approach. He takes the time to research the reason the problem exists. As a physician, he understands that without understanding the cause of a problem, no attempt to solve it will be successful. If you don't make the right diagnosis, you cannot effect a cure. A perfect example is his approach to healtcare. His analysis of the problem brings him to the understanding that the problem was caused by government intervention in the healthcare market. This intervention dates all the way back to the 1800s with the formation of the first medical cartel, the AMA. It continued with state licensing of medical colleges and culminated in the HMO act of 1973. This century long history of government intervention resulted in a medical industry that is no longer responsible its prime customer, the patient. Any proposal which attempts to resolve the problem by adding another layer of government intervention is doomed to failure. Another example is Ron Paul's approach to middle east policy. He understands what motivates the suicide terrorists because he has taken the time to study them, to study the history of the region. He understands that the Muslims resent the US for its involvement in the writing of the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI. It was this treaty that created the artificial nations of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc. It was this treaty that abandoned the promises made by the British to the Arabs who fought with T.E. Lawrence. The Muslims also remember the UN sanctioned, US backed partition of India which created the artificial state of Pakistan. Millions of Muslims died in the forced migrations the partition caused. The Muslims also remember the overthrow of the elected leader of Iran in 1953 by our CIA. They remember US support of Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran and our later abandonment of him. They remember US support of Osama bin Laden and his fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and our later abandonment of him. The remember the presence of US soldiers on the ground in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. They remember the sanctions that starved thousands of Iraqis. These are the reasons they attack us. These are the policies Ron Paul wants to end. Ron Paul is absolutely correct in his assertion that we must "just march out" of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems. There is no Constitutional authority for our presence there. Nor is there any Constitutional authority for the granting of any foreign aid of any kind to any foreign nation. If the author of this article is so concerned with the welfare of Iraqis, let him take some money from his own pocket and send it to them. He has no right whatsoever to use the power of the Federal Government to reach into my pocket and take my money for that purpose. I could go on debating this...um...person for hours but I really do have better things to do with my time. by
Michael Wagner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 3:01:32 PM
|
|
I live in the heart of America, and am haunted by the saying:
|
What it means to be a Constitutionalist . . . We all have fire in our homes. Under OUR control, it heats water, heats the house, and cooks our food. This makes us comfortable. But when fire gets out of control, it consumes the entire home, and everything is lost, sometimes our lives. Fire does NOT control itself. So goes government. A reasonable amount of it makes everyone fairly comfortable. But it also does NOT control itself. And when it gets out of control, it will consume the nation. And we lose everything, including our lives. So we've got to try keeping our governments under control. From: GreatRedDragon.com - Essence of Economics This is what I personally think Ron Paul addresses. It's very hard to say exactly what would be done or not done once he becomes president. But his actions have matched his words. He's not a sociopath like the others. He may not be correct in certain cases, but he doesn't say one thing then do something totally different. It's quite obvious that all the efforts of moving primary dates is to prevent Ron Paul from gathering momentum. He's already got my vote, because it's not for sale. by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 3:47:48 PM
|
|
Bio -- I'm a Vietnam War veteran, Antioch College graduate, and sometime schoolteacher....pushing 60, and living in Massachusetts. |
Bravo, Mr. Swanson! Sounds like all these would-be 'rugged individualists' have been reading too much Ayn Rand. Taxes are what we pay for civilization; and that government that libertarians always complain about is US! The only reason it doesn't work for our benefit is that it has been hijacked--and largely dismantled--by people and corporations whose mantra is Get Government Off Our Backs! That attitude is the same attitude that gave us the robber barons of the 19th century. Their brand of unbridled capitalism needs to be checked by a federal government whose writ must supersede any attempt by the individual states to deliver their governments into the hands of local magnates and industrialists. A weakening of our national government would make states (like Delaware) into corporate 'fiefdoms'. The answer to our current national predicament is for the citizenry to rise up and demand that this government "of, by, and for" The People be operated in the interest of its citizens, rather than in the interests of those "free market" corporatists who currently own it. After metaphorically "wringing its neck", the current crop of toadies in Washington have set themselves the task of "reformulating" this government in order to serve their corporate masters more effectively. They have made a hell of a start...by whittling away at individual rights we once declared 'inalienable' and by engaging in foreign wars designed to make business more profitable for corporations which owe no allegiance to this nation and its people, but only to their own bottom line. I, for one, want to go no further down the path laid out by the Bushes, Cheneys, Liebermans, and (yes) the Clintons and Feinsteins who are willing tools of the corporatists that finance their campaigns for election and re-election. These political opportunists (in BOTH major parties!) have learned that Fear is their best weapon against citizen unrest and rebellion. One Party tries its best to frighten us with stories about how such-and-such a group from such-and such country (or sect) is dead set on destroying us because they "hate our Freedom". The other Party does its best to scare the bejeeezus out of voters with horror stories about how iniquitous and dictatorial their competitors are, while all the time preaching a brand of "Lesser Evil-ism" that is the only thing standing between our admitedly scaled-down freedoms and utter disaster. I say, "a pox on both their houses!" It's time to look beyond this 'sacrosanct' two-party system (which serves no one except the "two" parties and their patrons) and to search elsewhere for honest representatives to protect--and perhaps even further--the interests of 'We The People'. Ron Paul seems honest (for which I am truly grateful), but his program would do nothing to protect the freedom and well-being of an increasingly balkanized citizenry. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, is not only honest, but earnest in his proposals for less war and strife and more peace, genuine freedom, and a shared prosperity. I am enthusiastic about supporting Dennis K. throughout the primaries...and beyond, should he win the Democratic Party nomination (possible, but highly improbable) OR should he bolt the increasingly corporatized Democrats and strike off on his own as a 3rd Party candidate (which is my fondest hope!). NOW is the time for all good men (and women) to start voting their Hopes rather than their Fears. No more "lesser evil-ism", goddammit!... And no more trusting the pundits to tell us who is a "serious"--and who is an "unelectable"--candidate. "”For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by
Bill Tower (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 4:35:21 PM |