Ron Paul has some great ideas and positions. He might even make a good President someday. But idea's and policies are NOT what the 2008 Presidential Election is all about.
The Republicans controlled Congress through most of the last 13 years and the Presidency for the last 7. And what did we conservatives get in return? Sex scandals, forced resignations, bloated budgets, a botched after-"victory" policy in Iraq, bankruptcy "reform" favoring businesses over the individual. We got pork, and lots of it. We got higher taxes with more on the way. In short, we got business as usual in Washington.
The 2008 Presidential Election is not about ideas or philosophies. It's about one thing and one thing only: making sure Hillary Clinton is not the next President of the United States.
Only a handful of Presidents have really made a difference in the recent past. FDR with socialized security and maneuvering the US into WWII as a way to end the depression. Nixon went to China, who if they play their cards right, will be the reigning economic and political superpower of the 22nd century. Ronald Reagan did defeat the Soviet Union and is a personal hero of mine, but his 1986 Amnesty Bill gave hope to millions of Mexicans who have since invaded America and have caused the immigration mess which will ultimately drag us down to 2nd world status.
Bill Clinton did do one thing I am eternally grateful for: he directed the military to stop purposely distorting the signals from the civilian GPS satellites. I have no sense of direction and an accurate car navigation system is essential to my well-being.
George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter I rank as the two worst Presidents of the 20th century. But for all the damage they did and bad policy they executed, America survived. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, we may not be so lucky.
This next Presidential election is all about NOT electing Hillary Clinton President. Period. Since Ron Paul is not capable of beating her head to head, he can only serve as a spoiler, talking votes away from the Republican candidate. And that elects Hillary President.
I still have great hopes for Obama. If he can get his campaign in sync, he has a chance of beating Hillary in the primaries. Texas has open primaries, and for the first time in my life, I'll be voting in the Democrat primary for Obama. If he's selected as the Democrat candidate, then frankly I don't care who wins the general election anymore so go ahead and push Ron Paul.
But my biggest nightmare is a Clinton/Obama Democrat ticket. That will be REAL tough to overcome and Ron Paul will only make it harder.
Lets talk about Ron Paul for a moment. I'm an evangelical Christian and I could support him. I agree with most of his views. But I'm from Texas and I never even HEARD of this guy before Digg and other similar outlets started publicizing him. He has NO national name recognition and as I said earlier, this is not an election about ideas: it's an election to beat Hillary. She's a household name, has more Teflon coating her than Ronald Reagan could ever dream of having, has a huge and successful political machine and the mainstream media behind her. We also have an American public that is sick of George Bush, sickened by Republicans, and is "looking for a change". It doesn't matter what the change is, it's change time.
When Bill Clinton's 2nd term expired, Hillary basically left Washington, bought a multi-million dollar house in NY (with questionable funding), said "I am a New Yorker", and ran for Senator. All the Clinton scandals and dirt were still fresh in everyones minds. She had no experience as an elected official and NY is a powerful state. She shouldn't have had a chance.
The Republicans put up Rick Lazio, a staunch conservative, very popular in his congressional district, and the darling of NY talk radio. He was a life-long New Yorker and should have mopped the floor with a blatant carpet-bagger like Hillary Clinton. But he had no name recognition in Northern New York and Hillary out-debated him. The rest is history. Yesterday's Rick Lazio is today's Ron Paul.
Fortunately (I can't believe I'm using that word), the Democrats control Congress and public support for Congress is at a low too. The Republicans could actually pick up a few seats there.
But when it comes to the Presidency, lets get real: unless one of them implodes, the Republican nominee is going to be either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. Romney is better on policy but is a Mormon. That doesn't bother me even though I consider Mormons to be cultists, not Christians, any more than it bothered me that Joe Lieberman was Jewish. Or that JFK was Catholic. This is politics, not religion. I do draw the line at Scientologists, but other than that, religion is not going to be a factor in who I vote for. Unfortunately, that may not be the case for the critical evangelical Christians the Republicans need to win. Rudy's position on abortion is not a big help there either.
The last thing we need is another excuse for Christian and conservative voters to "protest" by staying home and that's Ron Paul. Voting sometimes means holding your nose and choosing the lesser of two evils. I did that that when I voted for Bush 43 because Al Gore and his wacky environment policies would have meant $5.00/gallon gas and all kinds of other invasive, restrictive, and America-hurting policies.
Ron Paul has no chance of beating Hillary Clinton head to head. God forbid he decides to run as a third-party candidate and become another Ross Perot, syphoning off Republican votes. It's still early in the campaign so let him run as hard as he likes, as long as its against Hillary and not against the other Republican contenders. In the end, if he's any kind of factor, let him come out strongly for whomever the Republicans do select as their candidate and campaign hard for them and against Hillary. He'll live to fight another day.
One day, Ron Paul could be a viable Presidential candidate, but not this time. The goal for 2008 is to prevent Hillary Clinton, who is a clear and present danger to the nation, from becoming our next President.
At this point, I think Rudy is more electable than Mitt, even though I disagree with Rudy on a number of issues. And he needs to tone down the "9/11 hero" thing: everyone KNOWS all about that already and he doesn't need to rub it in America's face at every opportunity to profit from it....it could backfire. Rudy also did an AMAZING job in transforming NY City from a dirty, crime-ridden, dark, Batman-like Gotham City into the beautiful place it is today: I know, I lived 25 minutes away, and you just didn't visit NY, especially at night, under his predecessor's time in office. I know the liberal spin says otherwise, but Rudy really turned the city around.
And if Rudy does implode, or Mitt Romney looks to be the best bet for beating Hillary, I'll vote for him. Because, as I said at the start, this election is not about policy, ideas or any of that. This election is about one thing and one thing only: Electing ANYONE but Hillary Clinton President of the United States.
Technorati Tags:anyone but hillary in 2008, mr.unloadingzone, http://anyonebuthillaryin2008.blogspot.com, 2008 election, anyone but hillary, democrat, election 2008, hillary, hillary clinton, mitt romney, obama, presidential election, republican, ron paul, dr. paul, rudy, rudy giuliani, mitt romney
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
21 comments:
I totally disagree with your assessment of Ron Paul. I believe just the opposite!
I think Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that CAN beat Hillary. His views on the war will take away the anti war vote that she would get from any other republican candidate and his views on the second amendment and the fact that she's a woman will solidify most of the men in this country. Also Ron Paul appeals to so many more democrats/ independents etc.. than the other republican candidates. With this being said I truely believe that only Ron Paul can beat Hillary Clinton.
May I offer a counterpoint?
Actually, I believe that Ron Paul is the only Republican with any chance at all against the Hillary Clinton machine. Here is the reason why:
First, his anti-war position is perfectly aligned with the vast majority of Americans, much more so than Clinton's is. He flat out owns this issue, and is much more clear in his articulation of it than any other candidate from either party. While there's still a substantial number of Republicans who favor our involvement in Iraq, almost an equal number are ready for withdrawl. No Republican who "beats the war drum" in 2008 can win against a general 70% public opionion favoring withdrawl. In short, he takes the Republicans' greatest liability and turns it into a positive.
Will this greatly anger the bellweather conservatives such as Sean Hannity? Yes. However, as the 2006 elections indicated, these guys are not able to really influence public voting opinion. They are seen more as entertaining "blowhards" than anything else by quite a few Republicans and nearly every Democrat. They've carried too much water for too many "dirty" Republicans for too long. Indeed, being hated by Sean and Rush is a great position for any Republican seeking to win a national general election.
Second point: The public is in a generally angry and hostile mood over the perception that they have been lied to over several issues, and quite gloomy about future economic prospects. Paul offers a clear vision of what America is "supposed to be," not merely a tweak or two to the current situation. That is a huge advantage.
Third point: Paul actually has an interesting charisma. He comes across as absolutely honest and dedicated to what he believes. Meanwhile, Clinton tends to come across as "phony as a three dollar bill" unless wrapped in layers of media hype and distortion.
Paul's debate performances, when he has had a chance to speak, have been stunningly effective. The man can argue a point better than any of the other milqetoast Republicans on the stage, and often gains a very loud applause for it. Arguing against his fellow party member's positions and having half the audience cheer is a sign of a winner.
Drive around many cities, and you will see hand-made Ron Paul signs hanging up already. This indicates a candidate who is able to inspire his supporters to go out and work for his election, without paying them. The Internet traffic he generates is off the charts, again indicating a near-fanatical following. No other Republican even comes close.
Low poll numbers at the current stage of the campaign is actually a bit of a plus for Paul. It lets him claim the mantle as a "breakout" candidate, which adds excitement to the race. Remember a couple other "no chance" breakouts lately: Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Both were panned as having zero chance, and both won.
The key to a possible Paul win is that he represents a sharp change from the Republicans of the last 20 years or so, whereas Hillary represents a continuation of the same Democratic Party we've had for quite some time.
Don't count this guy out at all.
Huh, I think you raise an interesting question, but I almost entirely disagree with your analysis of the answer. I think the 08 election is all about stopping Hillary, but to the contrary, I think Ron Paul is the _only_ one who can do that.
For a number of reasons.
1) Hillary's greatest problem is not healthcare or Whitewater. Her problem is that she looks and acts like a manufactured processed candidate. Everything that is personal there about her looks politically slimy, and she has a history of flipflopping. Based on that metric, Ron Paul is a dream candidate. He stands for what he believes, even when no one else does, and he talks straight. The response to a tricky dick was a simple carter (for all, and i mean _all_ his faults). I think that the secretive, manipulative bush presidency might propel someone like Paul
2) The war. Ron Paul comes up behind Hillary's flank on the war issue. In a comparison, she looks like a war hawk, and she looks like a flip flopper.
3) Evangelicals. You may be alright with Rudy or Romney, but Dobson isn't, and he has a fair amount of sway. Ron Paul's personally pro-life/politically antifederalist answer to abortion is a big win for him. Not to mention he has personally delivered over 4,000 babies. That should give him good traction.
4) The war over the middle. Given that many republicans will vote for Anyone But Hillary, the group to pull for is the independent voters. Those are flocking to Ron Paul. Traditionally disaffected republicans, libertarians, hard money conservatives, anti-war hippies, anti-prohibitionists, and others are all being pulled to Paul. For the _primary_. Who was the last presidential candidate who was bringing new members to the party in the _primary_?
I'm more concerned about the primary. I think that if he can make it through the primary, he's got it in the bag. It's the primary that I'm worried about.
TheHyperaspist
Actually, Paul is the only chance the Republicans have to beat Hillary. Whatever your opinion is about the war, the Anti-war candidate is going to win. In Paul vs Hillary, Hillary is the Pro-war candidate (Hillary voted for the war, Paul voted against it). Second, Paul is the only Republican that could get Democratic votes. In fact, attend your local Ron Paul meetup group (they're all over the country and have more than 10 times the amount of volunteers as second place Obama) and you find that there are Democrats attending. Ask them why and the most common answer is "I think Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee". In other words, if Paul is the Republican nominee then they won't have to vote for Hillary.
While your post is written sincerely, it seems you are ignorant of the political situation in this country. Even Newt Gingrich says that Hillary has an 80% chance of beating the Republican frontrunners due to the Iraq issue. The only way Hillary loses is if Paul is her opponent or Iraq turns into happy land in the next 12 months.
Your point about name recognition is accurate but that's easily overcome. Paul now has more cash to spend on advertising than McCain does and his name recognition is currently at the same level that Carter had at this time in 75 and Clinton had at this time in 91. Even with that, Paul has won more straw polls than any other Republican candidate so he has to have some name recognition. So, if you really don't want to see the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton regime continue, get on the Ron Paul bandwagon and start spreading the word.
Now is the time for Ron Paul. Public discontent is at a peak. The People are fed up with this type of fuzzy logic. We've been voting for the lesser of evils for decades and we can plainly see the destructive results. It is time to stop voting Against the wrong candidates and policies and started voting FOR the Right ones. How can you possibly think that more of the same from the Republicans will beat Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter in this climate?!! The only way Republicans can possibly win this election is by drastically changing our image. We need to reclaim the moral high ground, and that type of revolution occurs in the realm of Ideas. The Bushites and the Neocons have already lost, it is up us to Restore this Republic!
he is the only one that can beat hillary ,this argument is illogical ...................
This is the same kind of logic that got us our current president. Stop being stupid, people.
If Ron Paul is not nominated and wins it won't make any difference who wins.
Yes he can. People are voting for him like crazy in all the straw polls and txt message polls. He's getting more donations from real people than any other candidate in either party. he's becoming one of the most popular men in America with hardly any attention at all from the mainstream media. If the Republicans don't find another candidate or attract new voters soon, Ron Paul will win by default.
You fail.
I'm done voting for the "least worst" candidate (that's how we got here in the first place!). I'll vote for people I support wholeheartedly, and write-in all the others.
It's funny how the neocons refer to us as "Ronbots," when in fact they are the ones robotically following their leaders over the cliff -- both politically and in the real sense that they're willing to trash the country just so they can be the ones in power while it happens.
Actually, I believe that Ron Paul is the only Republican with any chance at all against the Hillary Clinton machine. Here is the reason why:
First, his anti-war position is perfectly aligned with the vast majority of Americans, much more so than Clinton's is. He flat out owns this issue, and is much more clear in his articulation of it than any other candidate from either party. While there's still a substantial number of Republicans who favor our involvement in Iraq, almost an equal number are ready for withdrawl. No Republican who "beats the war drum" in 2008 can win against a general 70% public opionion favoring withdrawl. In short, he takes the Republicans' greatest liability and turns it into a positive.
Will this greatly anger the bellweather conservatives such as Sean Hannity? Yes. However, as the 2006 elections indicated, these guys are not able to really influence public voting opinion. They are seen more as entertaining "blowhards" than anything else by quite a few Republicans and nearly every Democrat. They've carried too much water for too many "dirty" Republicans for too long. Indeed, being hated by Sean and Rush is a great position for any Republican seeking to win a national general election.
Second point: The public is in a generally angry and hostile mood over the perception that they have been lied to over several issues, and quite gloomy about future economic prospects. Paul offers a clear vision of what America is "supposed to be," not merely a tweak or two to the current situation. That is a huge advantage.
Third point: Paul actually has an interesting charisma. He comes across as absolutely honest and dedicated to what he believes. Meanwhile, Clinton tends to come across as "phony as a three dollar bill" unless wrapped in layers of media hype and distortion.
Paul's debate performances, when he has had a chance to speak, have been stunningly effective. The man can argue a point better than any of the other milqetoast Republicans on the stage, and often gains a very loud applause for it. Arguing against his fellow party member's positions and having half the audience cheer is a sign of a winner.
Drive around many cities, and you will see hand-made Ron Paul signs hanging up already. This indicates a candidate who is able to inspire his supporters to go out and work for his election, without paying them. The Internet traffic he generates is off the charts, again indicating a near-fanatical following. No other Republican even comes close.
Low poll numbers at the current stage of the campaign is actually a bit of a plus for Paul. It lets him claim the mantle as a "breakout" candidate, which adds excitement to the race. Remember a couple other "no chance" breakouts lately: Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Both were panned as having zero chance, and both won.
The key to a possible Paul win is that he represents a sharp change from the Republicans of the last 20 years or so, whereas Hillary represents a continuation of the same Democratic Party we've had for quite some time.
Don't count this guy out at all.
I'm thinking Gore wouldn't have been so bad since we had a republican house and senate he would have been a lame duck the entire time and wouldn't have been able to suspend the constitution to the same degree that Bush has.
You can make a lot of arguments that Al Gore might have been better than Bush (Bush's Patriot Act, for instance). The neocons are would-be fascists while the lefties are would-be communists. If you've ever read "The Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayek, he explains that both positions wind up with the same result -- tyranny. This strategy by the neocons to run around with their hands in the air screaming "Watch out for the [insert bs demon here]! You've got to let **US** remove your freedom so that **THEY** can't!" is wearing pretty thin. Hillary is today's demon. You guys want her out of the way so you can get back to the regularly-scheduled demons.
We're not buying your BS any more. Ron Paul is the best hope we've seen for turning around on the Road to Serfdom, and we're going to help him in any way we can.
....and we would have done worse with Al Gore. I appreciate your idealism, but it's time to be realistic. Hillary is a real threat. Ron Paul can not beat her in a general election right now. Do the right thing and stop Hillary
You failed to make your case that Ron Paul cannot beat Hillary Clinton head to head. Not only did you bury any attempt at this argument behind paragraphs of padding -- a sign in itself you don't have a real argument -- the few morsels of argument you did present were irrelevant or lame. Please -- I'd like to see a good, concise, description of why Ron Paul cannot beat Hillary Clinton if he is the Republican nominee. Sit down and compose yourself before writing it.
If you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you are still voting for evil. Wake up.
Dr. Paul, like Obama, has to be very careful how they play their "we voted against the war and you voted for it" card. Hillary could very easily turn that around on them. Read my post "Mr Obama, wake up and smell the gunpowder".
Dear Mr. Unloading Zone,
I strongly suspect this post, indeed this entire blog is [I]satire[/I]! Anyone but Hilary in 2008? The title reveals your blog to be a parody! "Anyone but Hilary," that is the line that pretty much every GOP candidate uses, except for Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the only candidate to run a positive campaign based on his own merits, as opposed to a negative campaign based on the fact that he is not Hilary Clinton. Many people all over the Internet (esp. Youtube, Blogger, Myspace) pretend to be Evangelical Christians and conservative Republicans while talking shit about Ron Paul, and I believe you are one of them. Some of them do it for attention, others as a Borat-esque or Colbert-esque satirical act. Why would any conservative denounce the only true conservative running?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/mafaldo1.html
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_114454.asp
Frankly, the idea that we should [B]only[/B] stop Hilary is retarded. We should, I agree she is a bad candidate, but that is not enough. Why settle for the lesser of two evils when a non-evil is available?
While I suspect that you do not mean any of the above, that this is all an act and a joke, I will shoot down your inane "arguments."
[I]"The Republicans controlled Congress through most of the last 13 years and the Presidency for the last 7. And what did we conservatives get in return?"[/I]
Ron Paul is no ordinary Republican. See [B]his[/B] Congressional record.
[I]"Ronald Reagan did defeat the Soviet Union and is a personal hero of mine,"[/I]
Ronald Reagan was a decent president but I am sick of that bullshit about him singlehandedly defeating the Soviet Union, which pretty much defeated itself.
[I]"...but his 1986 Amnesty Bill gave hope to millions of Mexicans who have since invaded America and have caused the immigration mess which will ultimately drag us down to 2nd world status."[/I]
If you are against amnesty for illegal immigrants, then Ron Paul is your man. But why would more Mexican immigrants drag US&A down to 2nd world status? (What does 2nd world even mean after the Cold War?) I could understand why some worry about disasterous results of ILLEGAL immigration, but to worry about Mexican immigrants in general is racist, and based on that statement, you would be racist scum, but you don't really mean that because this blog is satire.
[I]"George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter I rank as the two worst Presidents of the 20th century. But for all the damage they did and bad policy they executed, America survived."[/I]
Based on that statement, you are either a major idiot, or just totally ignorant of American history. I agree that George W. Bush was ONE of the worst presidents of the 20th century, but certainly not first or second place. (I am inclined to disagree with you on Jimmy Carter, who was decent IMO.) Woodrow Wilson was by far the worst president ever, but Theodore Roosevelt was a close second. Both were 20th century presidents btw. Then after those Bush II runs a third place slot.
[I]"I still have great hopes for Obama. If he can get his campaign in sync, he has a chance of beating Hillary in the primaries. Texas has open primaries, and for the first time in my life, I'll be voting in the Democrat primary for Obama."[/L]
I'm glad you realize that no other Republican can win! Thanks for admiting it! This proves that your blog is a parody (unless you are a RINO). Fact is, your best chance to beat Hilary is to nominate Ron Paul or to vote for Obama. That way, if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, then when the Democrats win Hilary won't.
[I]"Since Ron Paul is not capable of beating her head to head, he can only serve as a spoiler, talking votes away from the Republican candidate. And that elects Hillary President."[/I]
If Ron Paul can not beat Hilary Clinton head to head, then nobody can! But Ron Paul can [B]easily[/B] beat Hilarity Clinton! On the other hand Clinton can beat any other Republican hands down. It is a simple match of rock-paper-scissors.
[I]"...unless one of them implodes, the Republican nominee is going to be either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney."[/I]
In which case, the Republicans automatically lose the presidential race.
[I]"Ron Paul has no chance of beating Hillary Clinton head to head."[/I]
Why not? You provide no reason. 'Cause you said so? Oh that's right... you know EVERYTHING! What are you? A time traveler? Psychic?
[I]"God forbid he decides to run as a third-party candidate and become another Ross Perot, syphoning off Republican votes."[/I]
Why? It's not like it will make a difference because the other Republicans can not beat Hilary!
Who else do the Republicans have?
An unqualified fascist with no experience in national politics? (His pro-choice, pro-gun control stance is not much help, yet somehow Pat "the Rat" Robertson endorses him.)
A strawpoll-buying flip-flopper? (Remember the last time a flip-flopping billionaire from New England ran for president? Hint: What was the outcome of the last presidential election)
A Hollywood actor who helped Nixon evade prosecution? (Also, remember what happened to the last presidential candidate who looked like a frankenstein.)
The Bible Belt version of a socialist. (His name rhymes with an act of copulation involving a honey-producing insect.)
How about that guy who looks like a rodent? (You know the guy who seems to be losing...)
What about a Nazi? (There are two running for the GOP. And one of them is a born-again Christian [B]Zion[/B]Nazi... the other really hates Mexicans. But neither of them has a chance.)
I hope Hilary Clinton does not get elected, but that is not good enough. Only Ron Paul can bring victory.
To Anonymous of December 17th,
It's too bad you didn't read my December post "Could I have been WRONG about Ron Paul?"
This blog has been I journey for me. I'm 49, I served in the military under a Jimmy Carter Presidency (talk about morale problems!) and I had been a conservative Republican since I was 13 (none voting of course).
I suspect you're in your twenties and I was as idealistic as you at that age. I have a degree in Political Science (useless unless you wanted to be a lawyer, but I ruled that out too late).
I lived through the 1980's, and you're wrong: Ronald Reagan DID defeat the Soviet Union. While everyone else was yelling nuclear freeze and hiding under their desks, he was the only one who had the courage to stand up and call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and said they would not stand.
Reacting to SDI, very correctly nick-named "Star Wars", bankrupted the Soviet Union into extinction. We BARELY have the technology TODAY, and it's got a long way to go, to do what Reagan promised with SDI. But Jack Kennedy also said the US would put a man on the moon before 1970 and we did it. Reagan bluffed the Soviet Union and won. The financial cost was huge, but how much do you think it would have cost the US to pull itself back together after a nuclear exchange, intentioned or accidental. We came incredibly close to an accidental nuclear war in the 80's when a meteor shower was detected as incoming missiles.
And then Reagan had to rebuild the military from the bottom up because Carter had so underfunded it. At one point, we couldn't have carried on a war in one theater, let alone the three the military was tasked with.
As to this blog being a parody, I would say when I started it that it was more sense of frustration and disgust with politicians in general that inspired the title. I have watched Hillary Clinton over the years, over the cattle futures incident, over the "missing" White House documents that mysteriously showed up in her bedroom. She was the driving force behind Bill Clinton's biggest non-sexual mistakes. She has a huge ego, will say anything to anyone at any time for political advantage, and is more poll driven than Bill ever was. She feels she has earned the RIGHT to be President. Her motives for wanting the position are centered around her ambition and her globalist outlook. I did then and I do now feel, that under the circumstances that exist today, she is a real danger to this country. So being so cynical about politicians and literally frightened for America of a Hillary presidency, I felt ANYONE would be better than her and concentrated on electability.
I'm not going to answer you point by point because this comment would turn into a blog post all by itself. I will respond to a few though.
America's historic greatness came through an immigration policy based on the melting pot theory. It's kept our blood fresh and prevented us from going the way of the British Empire and those before her.
We have, best guess, over 15 million illegal aliens in this country. The overwhelming majority are from Mexico. Their goal is not to assimilate into the American culture. Their goal is not to become Americans. Their goal is to make and take as much as they can from here and send it back "home" to Mexico...to the tune of $60 Billion per year.
Illegal immigration is my hot-button. I don't write about it on this blog, but if you go to my other blog, http://theunloadingzone.blogspot.com, the second story on the front page is always the same one: The Issue: Illegal Immigration Crisis in America Today. It's an overview with links in chronological order to my significant posts on illegal immigration. Read it if you get a chance; it addresses your points and you may learn something.
As I state in the December post you overlooked, I'm slowly coming around on Ron Paul. The press isn't helping him, but if the money keeps coming in, he'll be able to get his word out beyond the internet, survive through the primaries and the debates, and could be the Republican candidate.
I'm actually rethinking my plan to vote in the democrat primaries for Obama or whomever else has a shot at beating Hillary. I may just go republican and vote for Ron Paul. Maybe. I like him on a lot of issues but he gives me pause on some others. So as my journey continues, I'll be looking deeper into Dr. Paul.
Watching him on TV or You Tube, he reminds me of Reagan in the way that he's very comfortable with who he is and what he stands for. I too find that attractive. But my heart has been broken too many times before to commit easily.
I'm not a republican anymore. I am conservative AND a Christian...I do resent you disparaging my religious beliefs.
As to who the worst Presidents of the 20th century were, I agree Wilson was a disaster. Teddy R. certainly was no shining star and Jimmy Carter was a disaster. But Teddy's cousin Franklin scares me in the way George W. does. He instigated the war with the Japanese and conspired to get us involved in the European end of WWII as a way to get us out of the Great Depression, presided over by Herbert Hoover, another disaster of a President you neglected to mention.
On my Unloading Zone blog, I wrote an article asking when did George W. go insane. I really think 9/11 pushed him into insanity resulting in the Iraq war and this crazy continuous drumbeat to attack Iran.
Just remember, as Dr. Paul himself often says, the President can propose legislation, can sign or veto legislation, but Congress makes the law. Does "Dr. No", as his colleagues call him, have the ability to win over enough of Congress to actually enact anything he stands for. He is not a political animal in the conventional sense while Hillary is the picture next to "Political Animal" in the dictionary. She has the potential to do tremendous harm. Dr. Paul has the will to do a lot of good, but will he be able to drag Congress along with him.
He would have to win in a LANDSLIDE to scare the professional politicians in Congress to follow him. That is not as likely as a Paul win in general.
But the election is almost a year away and a lot can happen. Maybe Kucinich's WIFE will run for President with him as Vice President. Dennis's wife is HOT and this is the "American Idol" generation.....she could pull it off...unless of course you think I'm being sarcastic :-).
Post a Comment