Time to Stand

Bookmark and Share    One of the greatest problems plaguing the political scene is cowardice. More particularly it is ideological cowardice. It is an admitted fact that candidates run to the fringe during primaries and then run to the center for the general election. That is considered good politics. Unfortunately, it makes for bad government.

The level of disgust with our elected government is astonishing. If it were just political partisanship, we could expect that approval ratings would be somewhere around 50%. Yet that is not the case. Approval ratings have dropped into the single digits numerous times for Congress and into the 30s for Presidents. Clearly the people are disappointed even in their own party’s elected officials.

The reason is simple. Politicians are cowards. They are for something one second and against it the next. Recently we’ve seen an uptick in the “I’m for it, but not for how it is being done” or “These are special circumstances that require measures I wouldn’t normally support.” They are two different ways of saying, “I don’t want to look like a flip-flopper but I want to be on the side of political expediency.” It is as if almost our entire elected government has become filled with Arlen Specter clones.

It is difficult to find a candidate that you can really believe will do what he or she claims. It is difficult to find a candidate that consistently speaks from an ideological foundation that is firm. The one thing all our “greatest” Presidents had in common was their willingness to stick to their principles and govern as they promised. Granted there were some Presidents who were equally consistent and failed, but at least the people knew what they were getting and they could decide whether or not to support those men. Today we treat ‘political conversion’ or ‘position adjustment’ as some sort of normal behavior.

Let’s look at this from another perspective. Is it normal to convert from Catholicism to Islam and then again to Lutheran? Such a thing would be considered absurd. But how are ‘political conversions’ any different? Sure, decades ago someone might go from Democrat to Republican because the parties themselves were transformed – BUT the reason for the change in party affiliation was based on a desire to be in the party that represented that person’s UNCHANGED positions on issues. Such changes are more like a member of the Episcopal Church becoming a Lutheran because that person did not support changes in the Episcopal Church doctrine (such as ordaining gay clergy). The person’s beliefs never changed, but the group to which he belonged changed in a way that was incompatible with those beliefs. That is not what is happening in politics today.

What we have today are people who are claiming to have changed their beliefs or to have found exceptions to their beliefs. That’s like a man saying he’s straight, but another guy at the gym was unusually attractive and in that extraordinary circumstance it made sense to have gay sex. Be it abortion or government bailouts or foreign affairs, it seems that ‘anything goes’ is the new normal. Whatever the political winds of that day happen to be, so too are that candidate’s “convictions”. It is disgraceful.

What will a candidate do if elected? Who knows? Maybe their record will shed some light on that and maybe it won’t. Maybe their previous positions will shed some light on that and maybe they won’t. It all depends on which parts of those they agree with today and which ones they see as ‘mistakes I’ve learned from’. Of course, today’s convictions may be tomorrow’s ‘mistakes I learned from’.

These ideological void candidates are not the only problem. We, the people, are equally to blame. We are cowards ourselves when we fear our beliefs might bring us criticism. We allow critics of our beliefs to bully us into silence about them rather than be labeled ‘extremists’. We end up supporting a candidate based not on what they truly believe and whether that matches our beliefs, but rather on who we dislike least of those ‘who can win’. We sell ourselves out first and then are upset when the person we supported does the same thing. We feel betrayed that the candidate that didn’t really share our views governs in a way that is contrary to our views instead of in the way promised during a campaign.

I have been one of those cowards this year. I have strong ideological beliefs. Yet, I refused to support the candidate that most reflects those views because I didn’t think he could win. I bought into the lie that we should support the one who can win over the one who is right. I took the side of those who refused to support Goldwater in ’64 and Reagan in ’76. I tried, in vain, to find another candidate who could serve as a ‘good enough’ choice and that ‘could win’ according to the pundits. I was an ideological coward.

Today that changes. Today I set aside my indecision between candidates I don’t really agree with who pundits say can win and throw my support behind the candidate with whom I am in the most ideological agreement. Maybe he can’t win the nomination. If he doesn’t, then I’ll support who does as any of them are better than Obama. But, this is my vote. This is my party. This is my ideology.

My endorsement for the 2012 Republican Nomination goes to Congressman Ron Paul.
Congressman Ron Paul

I fully recognize Ron Paul’s limitations. He has never been a chief executive. He’s not supported by the leadership of his party. He’s not a great speaker. His foreign policy scares the establishment. All those things were said about Barry Goldwater in 1964 but history proved that he would have been far better than what we got. His campaign sparked a movement that eventually brought us Ronald Reagan and the Republican Revolution of 1994.

We live in a different world than in the days of Reagan. An evil empire is not our chief concern and primary security risk. Today we face isolated terrorist cells around the world and the threat of economic destruction through control of energy, currency manipulation and cyber attack. Our national debt is greater than our GDP and our economy is built upon pushing money around more than actually creating anything of real value. Our entitlement system has grown so precariously huge that it threatens to bankrupt us within the foreseeable future.

There is only one candidate who sees that these issues are the greatest threats facing us. There is only one candidate who will use the power of the Presidency to force real cuts in spending and not just in the rate of spending growth. There is only one candidate who will rethink the old Cold War era military thinking and re-position us for responding to the threats of the 21st century. There is only one candidate who has been ideologically consistent for decades and who has correctly predicted the problems we are faced with today. There is only one candidate who won’t be corrupted by polls or pundits or lobbyists. There is only one candidate who believes more in governing within the confines of the Constitution than in finding excuses to circumvent it. There is only one candidate who put his life on the line for his country. There is only one candidate for me.

That candidate is Ron Paul and he has my endorsement and support.

Bookmark and Share

Ron Paul to Make His Presidential Campaign Official in New Hampshire

Bookmark and Share Congressman Ron Paul will officially declare his candidacy for President of the United States on Friday, May 13th. The announcement will be made in Exeter, New Hampshire

According to CNN, along with Pauls announcement will come several endorsements.

After appearing in last Thursdays presidential debate, the announcement that he is running for President comes as no surprise, but what would be surprising is if Ron Pauls campaign gains anymore traction than either of his previous two presidential campaigns did.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark and Share In an intriguing speech at CPAC, the much awaited Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul, issued many legitimates warnings to America, warnings that attack all that lies at the heart of Dr. Pauls sincerely, heartfelt concerns over the erosion of liberty.

In his approximately 20 minute long address, Rep. Paul told the audience that we need to changethe philosophy of what this country is all about. He described the Patriot Act as literally being the destruction of the 4th Amendment. He also literally stated that all the problems in the Mid East are our [Americas] fault and declared that when it comes to foreign aid and Egypt, we need to do a lot less, a lot sooner, not only in Egypt but around the world. Paul stated it use to be conservatives were against foreign aid. Im against all of it.

At one point Ron Paul even made a point to remind us that the fall of communism came about not through confrontation but by the collapse of the former Soviet Unions economy, a factor that was expedited bytheir inability to afford such foreign ventures as their ten year war in Afghanistan. He then brought our war in Afghanistan and added, so why do we think we can succeed?”

Another focus of Ron Pauls speech was a legitimate claim to the illegitimate role that Federal Reserve plays in our nation and how an audit of the fed is the first step to ending the federal reserve.

From beginning to end, Ron Paul was bolstered by an audience that contained a percentage of loyal enthusiastic followers with whom Ron Paul could say nothing wrong. The supporters literally raised the roof for Ron at CPAC. But it was also many of these Pauliacs who yesterday threw epitaphs at Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as the former Vice President presented Rummy with the ACUs Defender of Freedom Award. Some of them were even heard shouting out, war criminals at the two. Such antics and behavior were certainly not representative of Ron Paul. While passionate in his beliefs, he is respectful and through the words of his speech, much of his logic is understood and accepted and ceratinly warrants a place in the debate. A fact which I wish I could say about some of his supporters.

Bookmark and Share

Rand Paul vs. Ron Paul. Are Two Pauls Running For President?

Bookmark and Share When asked during an interview with ABC news if freshman Senator Rand Paul would consider a run for President in 2012 he quite lightheartedlyclaimed that it was too early to consider that but his desire to shape the debate did lead him to keep the door open after stating “Come back and ask me in a few months,”. He also added that if nominated he will run.

Rand Paul also said that he does not see himself in the senate thirty years from now and trying to consolidate power through seniority. That is a big difference from his father, Texas Republican and leading libertarian Representative, Dr. Ron Paul. He has been in Congress for a total of more than 24 years.

Meanwhile, in considering a run for President, one must askRand if he would still see the need to shape the debate” by running for President if it meant competing with his father?

Congressman Ron Paul has himself finally made some moves that indicate, although he has not made a final decision about afourthrun for President, he is keeping the door open as he seriously considers it. Ron Paul has accepted an Invitation to address Iowa voters in a presidential lecture series for the social conservative activist group known as the Family Leader.

Former Minnesota Governor and soon to be Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty is speaking before that same group as a part of their lecture series, today.

Some may initially think that, a run for President by Rand Paul, just two years after being elected to the first office he ever ran in, is too soon. But the possibility of such a candidacy is certainly not out of the question. One newly elected Senator has had to go out of his way to let to supporters know that he will not be running for the White House in 2012. Floridas Marco Rubio is largely viewed as a rising star and he certainly has all the makings of a President. In many ways he is the Republican version of the rock star-like status that President Obama had with Democrats. And while Marco has even more electoral and leadership experience than President had at this same point in his career, President Obama, essentially began running for President about six months after he was elected to his first term in the Senate.

Still, the likelihood of freshman Senator Rand Paul running for President in 2012, is not high but it is not impossible either. Rand is not up for reelection in the Senate until 2016, so it is not like he would have to choose between the presidency and the senate. And if he really sees a need to shape the debate as far as spending and our mounting deficit goes, he could make a difference if he runs. But would he really see the need to do that if others like deficit hawk Mitch Daniels enters the race? And would he see the need to shape the debate if his father enters the race?

Ron Paul on the other hand can easily take another stab at it. Texas allows candidates to run for President and other positions at the same time. So he does not have to choose between the House of Representatives or the White House. He could run for both and still get reelected to the House after losing the Republican presidential nomination.

Most of the so-called Subway Series interview in which Rand Paul made his remarks about the presidency in 2012, discusses his position in spending and passionate desire to settle our national debt.Rand discusses, among other things, his desire to cut “all” foreign aid. He addresses at length his want to remain strong allies with Isreal but to also include them in his plight to end foreign aide. According to Rand Paul, they are one one of the richest per capita nations in the world” and he adds, “we are giving them money that we don’t have”

The interview which is conducted by Jonathan Karlis held on the D.C. Metro subway train, hence the “Subway Series” name.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: