I'm assuming most of us will agree that McCain is the worst of the lot. Of course, I'd rather see Edwards nominated than Obama or Clinton, and I'd rather see Obama than Clinton. And, yes, of course McKinney or Nader would be preferable to the whole sorry bunch. But just for the sake of excruciating self-abuse and maybe illumination of the need to nominate someone who is not Clinton, let's try to answer the question.
If Ron Paul had been president for the past 7 years, a million more Iraqis would be alive, and another 4 million would not be refugees. The world would be a safer place, and Americans would have lost fewer freedoms. Clinton has supported the worst of the crimes of the past 7 years and opposed very few of them. She voted to invade Iraq and voted repeatedly to fund the occupation. Paul did neither of those things. Of course, this does not tell us whether Clinton would have launched the wars that Bush launched if she had been president.
Clinton does keep open the possibility of attacking Iran, even with nuclear weapons. Paul opposes new foreign occupations and would end the existing ones, close down the empire, and bring the troops back from the 80 percent of the nations on earth where they are now stationed. Paul would do something else remarkable for the federal budget: he would cut the budget of the Pentagon. Clinton would not.
But Paul would also eliminate the little the United States gives in foreign aid. Clinton might not boost it, but would probably not eliminate it. Clinton might also, in limited ways, restore the right to organize a union, halt the fall of the minimum wage, and restore a little progressivity to the tax code. Paul would not. Paul would cut empire spending, not in order to spend on something useful, but in order to cut taxes on corporations, the rich, and the poor alike. He would cut spending on everything useful as well. What Clinton's husband did to welfare, Paul would do across the board.
It's very difficult to imagine Clinton investing in the sort of green energy program that is probably needed to save the planet from ruin, but it's impossible to imagine Paul doing so. On the other hand, it's quite possible to imagine Clinton getting us into a nuclear war. How do we choose which way we would least like to perish?
In the meantime, how would we live? With Paul, the government would do even less to get Americans health care. With Clinton it would do a bit more, albeit at great wasteful expense propping up a private insurance system doomed to ultimately fail.
With Clinton in the White House, we'd face militaristic machismo and corporate corruption. Taxpayers would work half the year for the greed of weapons makers, media corporations, and insurance companies. Under Paul, the government would only boost corporate greed through deregulation; the machismo would take the form of immigrant bashing and world government conspiracy paranoia. Clinton would bomb some countries and talk to others. Paul would neither bomb nor talk.
Clinton has been a leading opponent of impeaching Bush or Cheney for their abuses of power. She could be expected to take advantage of the new presidential powers to spy without warrants, rewrite laws, violate laws, operate in secret, etc. Paul backed impeachment of Bush until he became a candidate and then sold out. But he bases his policies - even those I oppose - on his interpretation of the Constitution and U.S. law. To some significant extent he could be expected to try to operate within the bounds of the Constitution.
Clinton would continue the illegal occupation of Iraq. Paul would end it without offering the Iraqi people a dime in restitution or assistance. That's also exactly what he would offer any struggling American. Clinton would make minimal advances in public education. Paul would cut or eliminate federal school spending.
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.
Clinton would be no friend to immigrants, but Paul would be worse. 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," which ain't cheap (or useful).
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 even more swiftly than Bush, thereby endangering us all in the long run.
And eliminating Clintonian corporate trade agreements might slow the exploitation of third-world workers but would not end it. That would require global agreements on workplace rights, something neither Paul not Clinton would ever take the lead on, but something unions might be able to work toward under Clinton.
Under Clinton we would have major national campaigns of protest, against occupations, against media conglomeration, against corporate trade. These are very difficult battles for us to win. Under Paul, we would have many more battlefronts, but they would all be smaller, and organized groups might be more willing to wage them because Paul would not be a Democrat. We'd be fighting to save schools and housing and transportation and all sorts of other programs. We might have a better shot at winning such campaigns, and we would have the option (admittedly not the best option) of addressing such needs at the state level. Paul might destroy more of what's good in the federal government than anyone before him, but he would not forbid the states from replacing it.
If Paul does run, and if he does draw support, there is the possibility that Clinton will improve some of her positions, although Edwards hasn't had that impact on her. There's a guarantee, however, that the left will eat itself alive with accusations of treason. To do that to ourselves over a candidate who would eliminate anything good we've ever created, a candidate likely to take more voters from McCain than Clinton, would be tragic.
I don't have an easy answer, except this: DO NOT NOMINATE HILLARY CLINTON.
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.
| 36 comments |
|
only one Well Ron Paul is the only one that would reduce the military to a peace army, in a world with no enemies. He is the last chance for America to become a country that resembles a republic. unless he is elected,America is left with war and rumors of war. Americans themselves will become serfs at the expense of the Industrial war complex. So on the basis of peace and justice he is the only one that will promote both. by
dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 3:56:35 PM
|
|
touche' You are correct, simply because everything costs money. All these so called "good programs" that socialists ( democrats) propose benefit man kind even though they are unconstitutional cost Trillions of dollars which neither the government has nor can the people give to in order to sustain this out of control empire"Corp US". There is no other clear choice , but Ron Paul, thats it. Wake up America, turn on your Radio and listen between the lines the talking heads are babbling about. This country and this economy is crashing right now. Whwere do any of you think the money to fix it will come from? However America, unless you vote for Paul, you will not get what you are hoping for, becasue no one can fix what is coming and coming very quickly. by
Ray Kirks (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 4:44:30 PM
|
|
Paul's abortion stance Paul is not calling for absolute uniform regulation of abortion, rather for the jurisdiction of lobal laws. Abortion would be legal in most of the country even if the court decision was overturned, just that abortion would be regulated as a matter of law instead of constitutional right. And remember Roe was written by the same man who dissented in US v Nixon, claiming the Constitution was to read liberally to acommodate government power. If the Constitution can be interpreted to perhaps a good progressive way, that same mode of disrespect to the plain meaning of the English language leads to justification for the Patriot Act and numerous other measures that violate the plain text of the document, but are of such pressing, current, political importance. by
jacob klein (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 4:36:38 PM
|
|
Geographer with 30 years experience in Computer Science and Geographic Information Systems. Husband, father of two and CEO of Internet-based real estate technology firm. |
Measuring sticks I suggest that when you compare and contrast candidates you measure them against two very simple principles: 1) Will the candidate do all that they say they will do? and 2) Will they do all that they can to prevent the government from encroaching on people or their property? If you want to measure "worst" then the questions are: Who is most likely to lie? and who is most likely to steal? Hillary is by-far the worst with Giuliani, Huckaby, Romney, McCain, Obama, Romney and Edwards coming in a close second. Ron Paul exisits at the other end of the spectrum entirely. He is by-far the best as he does not lie and would never use the force of government to steal or trespass. by
Wildboar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 5:23:02 PM
|
|
|
Hmmmm If all the candidates are lying then I guess the best thing to do is vote for the biggest liar who you hate everything they say, eh? by
Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 7:32:44 PM
|
|
|
surprise! more wrong information about ron paul where to start on the millionth error filled inaccurate explanation of ron paul's politics A) he would not federally ban abortion, he would seek to overturn roe v. wade as having federal authority over state laws. this would give the jurisdiction of abortion back to the sates which is fully constitutional, as all violent crimes (if you are against abortion that is what it falls under) are presided over by the state. B) Paul has specifically said he would expand the "generosity" of our legal immigration policy, making it easier for more people to come legally than we currently allow. not less as you claim- being completely wrong must feel so awesome! furthermore, you idiot leftwing douche bags only prove over and over that you can't do simple math. in order for government to provide a service, they must pay for it. IF IT DOESN'T COME FROM TAXPAYERS THEN WHERE DO THEY GET THE MONEY? oh right, we're paying for it. so how is that free? oh yes, Ron Paul's approach is just so heartless, give everyone in the country a 15 to 30% pay increase by abolishing the income tax. oh you are so right, an extra 7 to 10 thousand dollars a year back in the pocket of the average american that makes only 30,000 would be a devastating blow to the middle class! god i am so sick of this fucking idiocy. by
Jeremy Frombach (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 5:42:34 PM
|
|
Ron Paul is gaining momentum! Check out all the latest media reporting on Ron Paul at www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com. Add links to media you find, contact the editors, leave them your comments or just enjoy the news. |
|
|
I am a middle-aged housewife, former homeschooler, with varied interests that certianly won't fit in this little box. |
Better question--who's worse, Goldman Sachs puppets or Paul?
by
Kate Miller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 7:10:09 PM
|
|
Young enough to care, old enough to see its all maya. |
what are your sources? It is obvious who is supporting Ron Paul. His money is coming in small donations from the people. Yet you claim he is being supported by corporations and government/military entities. Please support your claims with evidence otherwise its rumor mongering. by
sunnyjim (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:11:05 AM
|
|
Your average Joe. Degree in computer programming. Believe in freedom. |
Sources It appears our military backs Ron Paul in the most important issue facing the United States: Terrorism and our foreign policy. For the second time in a row, Ron Paul receives more donations among Republicans. Data for Democrats is not yet available, but Ron Paul crushed Democrats in this statistic last quarter as well. Candidate [Air Force] [Army] [Navy] [Marines] [Coast Guard] [Other*] [Total] Brownback [151] [0] [0] [0] [0] [250] [401] Ron Paul: $40K I'll help this person with sources: This data is sourced from FEC Reports for Q3 and was compiled here by jfletch and RP4.US *This list uses donators who listed their employer as some variation of Air Force, Army, National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Retired Vet, Veteran, Civilian Military employee, or Military (no branch indicated). This is preliminary data and may contain insignificant errors. Ron Paul led in military contributions last quarter as well. by
Ro Bo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 2:16:19 PM
|
|
No Clue Gosh I get sick of people trying to write about something they know nothing about, and worse yet, spin the truth and twist it with lies. Just like satan does. All liars are gonna have their time in the lake of fire, David. Here's fact: Clinton does keep open the possibility of attacking Iran, even with nuclear weapons. Paul opposes new foreign occupations and would end the existing ones, close down the empire, and bring the troops back from the 80 percent of the nations on earth where they are now stationed. Paul would do something else remarkable for the federal budget: he would cut the budget of the Pentagon. Clinton would not. But Paul would also eliminate the little the United States gives in foreign aid. Hello? "little"? 3 Billion to Israel and 10+ Billion to the Arabs? Not to mention borrowing 10 B from China to give to Pakistan! We can't afford it, this country is BROKE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?! Paul would cut empire spending, not in order to spend on something useful, but in order to cut taxes on corporations, the rich, and the poor alike. He's cutting empire spending to save money to keep things like Social Security and Welfare afloat, you dim wit, for those that have been made dependent on those programs. And allow tax credits for the rich and poor. Corporations are profit driven, they should be taxed, not the people, who only trade their labor for wages. He would cut spending on everything useful as well. What Clinton's husband did to welfare, Paul would do across the board. You consider welfare useful? Pray tell, what else do you think is useful?! It's very difficult to imagine Clinton investing in the sort of green energy program that is probably needed to save the planet from ruin, but it's impossible to imagine Paul doing so. Clinton is gonna save the planet from ruin, eh? How are you gonna stop up all the volcanoes and the sun from heating the planet? Paul wants the free markets to come up with the solutions, NOT GOVERNMENT. In the meantime, how would we live? With Paul, the government would do even less to get Americans health care. Why do you think it is the Governments responsibility to give us health care? Under Paul, the government would only boost corporate greed through deregulation; the machismo would take the form of immigrant bashing and world government conspiracy paranoia. We already have corporate greed, you bozo. Why do you think we're in the mess we already are in? Corporate greed is what sends Lobbyists to government to "buy" benefits for only their interests. Clinton would bomb some countries and talk to others. Paul would neither bomb nor talk. Paul is not for pre-emptive wars or nation building. He would talk and trade with countries. He believes in a strong military defense. I've heard him say that at least 50 times now. Where do you get this stuff? It's so apparent that you have not listened to him once. Paul backed impeachment of Bush until he became a candidate and then sold out. That is an outright lie. He never back it, because Congress was not going about impeachment the correct and Constitutional way. But he bases his policies - even those I oppose - on his interpretation of the Constitution and U.S. law. To some significant extent he could be expected to try to operate within the bounds of the Constitution. He has not "interpreted" the Constitution, which is U.S. Law, you ding a ling. The Constitution is written in very simple English, not like you have to "interpret it". Geesh. So you OPPOSE the Constitution. Hmmm. And operating within the bounds of the Constitution is a bad thing? Paul would end it without offering the Iraqi people a dime in restitution or assistance. Yep, he'd give them their country back, their oil back and even let them have that Embassy we built (which is as large as the Vatican). I'd call that restitution. If you'd like to give assistance, you are more than free to go over there AT YOUR EXPENSE, and do that. That's also exactly what he would offer any struggling American. No, that's not quite right. He would let us take responsibility for ourselves, keep government off our backs and out of our wallets. Paul would cut or eliminate federal school spending. Yep, Glory Halleujah! We can teach our own kids without government interference, thank you. Women who value the right to abortion would lose it under a Paul Administration. This is not speculation. Yes it is, you are speculating because you have never listened to him speak many times on that issue. Others have touch on it very well, so I'll let you read the truth they've posted. 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. Most Americans don't disagree with him, because most of them have never had the opportunity to hear him speak on it, no thanks to the Mainstream Media and yourself. Paul would allow fewer legal immigrants, (Well, that's an outright lie)while denying any illegal immigrants a path to become citizens. Well, if you are illegal, you need to become "legal" to become a citizen, duh. Yeah, illegals are denied, hello! An immigrant woman here without papers who was raped would be denied the right to an abortion. This woman would be considered ILLEGAL, Hello!, so she entered here at her own risk, and therefore is responsible for herself, not us or our government. Are you living in a fantasy land man? Her child, born in America, would be denied citizenship. Yep. So? Her family would be denied welfare, as well as health care, and education, not to mention any investment in public transportation. Yep. So? Undocumented workers would gain no workplace rights under a Paul government, Yep, that's right. So? and so the rights of all of us would continue to erode. Wow David, good try at trying to twist this to all of us losing rights because of the illegals not getting any. No, we would have our rights ensured, since we are here LEGALLY. In fact, immigrants would be scapegoated and associated with 9-11, and Paul's priority would be "securing borders," which ain't cheap (or useful). WHAT?!! How do you come to that conclusion? Clarify illegals from legal, you dimwit. Wow you really are a shill for Elitists aren't you? How about we bring home our Border Guards from Iraq and put them back on the job at our borders. We're already paying them and yeah, it is cheap, compared to giving all the illegals free food stamps, medical care, schooling, welfare, etc... You know what, I'm tired of countering all your blatant lies and spin of the truth. People that read this article better go research the facts. Funny, he mostly told the truth about Clinton, probably cause he actually researched her on the issues, or he secretly supports her. Yet he has corrupted nearly all the information about Paul. Go Ron Paul Go! by
Mary in Oregon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 7:52:42 PM
|
|
|
aaaand another person is right it is so nice to see people like david swanson corrected over and over... only to have another error filled post show up 2 days later. how about a new rule for opednews?? CHECK WITH A RON PAUL SUPPORTER BEFORE YOU POST BASELESS CRAP ABOUT HIS VIEWS. There are apparently plenty of them availble on this site that are more than willing to contribute. by
Jeremy Frombach (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 5:41:32 AM
|
|
|
You're stepping over the line, Mary Comparing David Swanson to Satan in your first line is simply ridiculous and you've lost all your credibility as far as I'm concerned. Whenever I see a Ron Paul devotee make a cheap, uncivil comment like that my view of Paul declines. I thought the Republican right-wingers had a monopoly on the spouting of one-sided dogma and Christain self-righteousness but I see it over and over again with Paul supporters. Chill. You sound like refugees from a cult. by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 220 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 638 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM
|
|
Libertarian commentator/analyst and talk show host. Deep liberal roots flowering into a pretty good understanding of the world as it truly is. Guitarist/musician; son of a government worker; black sheep-of-the-family type guy who survived his wild, stupid youthful days to become humbler and wiser, married to a razor-sharp woman also of deep liberal roots, who catches most mistakes in my written work; father of 3, cares deeply about people, but none of this matters really.
|
OH please Put a sock in it. We've got a lot of line-stepper-over-ers here at OpEdNews, and Mary is hardly the worst. You're "cult" comment is also offensive, and unfortunately, it is common here. by
Tom deSabla (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments)
on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 3:54:43 AM
|
|
I believe in Liberty. I loathe the evil things that people in the nation-state apparatus do. I want to be able to live in freedom, and allow all other men the same privilege. |
Actually, the ariticle is fair. This article is simply looking at Ron Paul policies from a leftist (a.k.a. social democrat) point of view. I think that your understanding of his policy stances is pretty accurate. All you fellow Ron Paul supporters need to chill out and realize where this guy is coming from. For example, Paul wants to eliminate the deptartment of education. From a leftist point of view, that is a negative. From our point of view, it is a positive. Paul's stance is what it is, whether you think it good or bad, and I think Mr. Swanson presented Paul's stances correctly. The only minor error I would call out is that Mr. Swanson states Paul would neither talk nor bomb. Actually, he has said repeatedly in interviews, debates, etc., that we "should talk with other countries". This is one of his big talking points! So it is absolutely wrong to say he would not talk to them. Perhaps you meant neither send tax money nor bomb, or, to put it in the leftist way: "neither help nor bomb". That statement would be accurate. by
Helmuth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 10:51:31 PM
|
|
Paul against the State Power As radical libertarian, Ron Paul attacks empire & public education because he knows that state education has been created in order to "produce" good citizens, good soldiers, good voters, good taxpayers, and so on. You cannot dominate the society if you don't put your hands over the education system. For this reason we are really naif if we rejects Iraqi war, but we don't understand that there is an ideological machine organized by the power in order to control our ideas and to plan our lives. by
Charles Bergamo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 1:04:18 AM
|
|
|
Some Introspective Advice Mary, He has even gone to jail, numerous times, seeking redresses and remedies for the treacherous behavior by the Bush administration and a complicit Congress. by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 378 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 2:24:11 AM
|
|
|
Fact-checking Paul's stance on Roe v. Wade
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 378 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 2:47:43 AM
|
|
Communism's 10 planks Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. Since Ron Paul believes in the Constitution instead of the Communist Manifesto, I will be voting RON PAUL 2008 & 2012 by
WizarDave Akins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 2:48:20 AM
|
|
JUST A CONCERN CITIZEN AND LOVE MY COUNTRY GREW UP IN A SMALL FISHING TOWN IN NJ,BUT THE DAY I GOT MY DRIVERS LICENSE,SPENT MOST OF MY TIME EXPANSING MY MINE. LEARNED A LOT THE HARD WAY,BUT MOSTLY STREET SMART. AT 65 HAVE PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHO THE SNAKES ARE. |
JUST THE TRUTH DAVID GOOD POINTS ,OUR NEXT PRESIDENT WE WILL ALL HAVE TO TRUST RIGHT, SO THAT MEANS HILLARY, OR HILLBILLY WE DON'T NEED. BECAUSE BETWEEN BILL AND HILLARY THERE'S NOT ONE ONCE OF TRUTH. AND RON PAUL IS ALL TRUTH, IF NOT THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE EXPOSED IT, SO THERE YOU HAVE IT IN A NUT SHELL. THAT WAS EASY. by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 3:03:56 AM
|
|
Retired from United Airlines after a 36.5 year career. Had pension stole from me by unscrupulous corporate management. I have already experienced a microcosm of what the country is going to go through! Every thing that is going to go down is about GREED! |
Re: Ron Paul I have begun extensive listening of Ron Paul's platform, positions, etc. I am 59 years old and can't remember the last time I was truly interested in any political candidate. This man fascinates me. His professed views and stands on various isssues date back 30 years or more, as near as I can figure out so far. He is consistent and not just spouting words since its election time. Furthermore, I admire his advocacy of returning to government based on our Constitution, even to the point of eliminating long term abuses of the principles established by the Founding Fathers...the Federal Income Tax and the IRS for example. If we want to live in a Democratic Republic, then we have to accept what goes with it. The liberal approach to life, a handout in every pot, trying to oversee the world to include active policing of it has run its course. We are going to have to face the facts, our Country is on the verge of bankruptcy and possible economic collapse. I am not a Bush fan by any means, as I have done my share of bashing him. I do think he is one of the worse Presidents this country has had the misfortune to have elected. All the problems we are experiencing, are going to experience, are not entirely his fault. We have had as long as I can remember Congressional Representatives that always put their Party and self-interest before that of their Country or the people they supposedly represented. The last 7 years has brought every thing to a head and I believe the party is over for our country. I do believe that we, and probably the entire world, are in for some hard times. I don't believe that any one we elect is going to be able to repair what's wrong in 4 or even 8 years. It is going to take some belt tightening, and most of all, a new beginning. We as citizens, as voters, are going to have to take our heads out of the sand, truly the people running for office and make better decisions. Voting based on religion, race, gender, or even sexual orientation is going to have to be thrown out. We darn well better start looking for people who are going to genuinely change the way things are done in Washington, or we are going to leave a third world country for our children to inherit. That is why I favor Ron Paul! I want to live in the Country envisioned by George, Ben, Tom and the rest of the gang back in 1776! I believe by voting for Ron Paul, that is the best way to voice my desire in this matter. It may not get done under his watch, but if we make sure that only candidates of the same ilk get our vote, then eventually we can take our government back. by
K Butler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 4:45:32 AM
|