email468
Well-Known Member
Ron Paul would be singing a different tune if all he wanted was to get elected. Media pundits consider him unelectable because of his small federal government ideals and all that entails. I am an undecided voter but I don't think Ron Paul is saying things just to get elected because he is saying the wrong things.
Some things to consider - the first president who had to fight for a small federal government? Thomas Jefferson (he lost) and the Federalists came to power. The Federal government has more or less grown ever since. The only states to really try to get out from under the Federal thumb was the Southern states leading to the Civil War (duh!). Reading periodicals of the time, you'll find much less focus on the "slavery" issue and way more focus on the "states rights" issue. Or as one of the leading confederate generals said at the time (and accurately portrayed in the film Gettysburg): "We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Sumter". After the defeat, no other states have had the desire (or balls) to throw down the gauntlet (which is clearly their right according to our constitution). Please note i am not defending slavery or choosing the confederate side. I am merely pointing out that states rights used to be a real issue in American politics.
and as i've mentioned before, the US is a "republican" form of democracy. So republican should not be a dirty word. It is one of the US founding principals.
There seems to be a real disconnect between Democrats and Republicans. They seem to no longer have the good of the country in mind - instead they seem to have the good of the party in mind. And this two party system (and the electoral college, primaries, etc..) is probably the single worse evil ever foisted on Americans. It limits the debate to a very narrow margin and allows candidates (and unfortunately the media plays host to it all) to define the argument and define the terms of the argument. No truly dissenting voice is every heard and if one ever does squeak - it is trampled quickly.
And so far, Ron Paul seems to be squeaking fairly successfully - which to me is good sign regardless who gets elected.
Some things to consider - the first president who had to fight for a small federal government? Thomas Jefferson (he lost) and the Federalists came to power. The Federal government has more or less grown ever since. The only states to really try to get out from under the Federal thumb was the Southern states leading to the Civil War (duh!). Reading periodicals of the time, you'll find much less focus on the "slavery" issue and way more focus on the "states rights" issue. Or as one of the leading confederate generals said at the time (and accurately portrayed in the film Gettysburg): "We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Sumter". After the defeat, no other states have had the desire (or balls) to throw down the gauntlet (which is clearly their right according to our constitution). Please note i am not defending slavery or choosing the confederate side. I am merely pointing out that states rights used to be a real issue in American politics.
and as i've mentioned before, the US is a "republican" form of democracy. So republican should not be a dirty word. It is one of the US founding principals.
There seems to be a real disconnect between Democrats and Republicans. They seem to no longer have the good of the country in mind - instead they seem to have the good of the party in mind. And this two party system (and the electoral college, primaries, etc..) is probably the single worse evil ever foisted on Americans. It limits the debate to a very narrow margin and allows candidates (and unfortunately the media plays host to it all) to define the argument and define the terms of the argument. No truly dissenting voice is every heard and if one ever does squeak - it is trampled quickly.
And so far, Ron Paul seems to be squeaking fairly successfully - which to me is good sign regardless who gets elected.
I added some more to my original post. I hit enter before I was done. I know Ron looks like the guy but he is still a republican. It's not hard to look good when your standing next to the piles of shit he is used to standing by. When it all comes down the line he will still have a republican ideal system. I do pray that if we have to go republican he get's it but that's about all. There are jobs that are too big for the state level. It is just a fact. They will be overwhelmed. We need to fix the federal system not abolish it. Even the best republicans have a general ideal base difference with me. I care about many more issues than just the war and taxes. I follow them closely and when it is time to vote a man like Dennis Kucinch would more likely vote the way I would. He get's little time because he does not stand out like Ron Paul does and he doesn't play to the crowd. I have got to give Ron Paul credit though. He has actually given me a reason to at least look at the other side. The man has balls and I love him for that. I loved it when what he said bothered Rudy Guliani so bad during a debate that he asked Ron Paul to take back his statements. The whole stage thought Ron Paul was crazy but for Rudy to basically want his freedom of speech questioned when they were debating the war where we are trying to instill our democratic, "free" ideals on another country really makes me shake my head. When he is pressured by his team should he become president I don't know how low those balls would hang. I have become used to empty pie in the sky ideas and promisses from both sides.