You didn't ask, but Here's What I Think
I have a ton of things I'd like to write about, but not enough time to do it in. I'm only here now because it is so deathly hot outside, I don't feel like doing anything constructive. Hence, this blog entry. Wait, that didn't quite come out right. I think I just insulted my own blog.
Here's my topic today: Ron Paul, 2008 Republican Primary candidate. There's only one thing I don't quite understand about this guy, and that is his stand against the Iraq war. He says that it should have never begun in the first place. But it is unclear to me exactly what he would do as president, were he to be elected next year, about national security in the Middle East and Muslim terrorism in general. I know he would be strengthening the borders here and enforcing immigration laws (now there's an idea!). I'm not an expert in military matters (obviously), but it seems to me that just having our military suddenly leave the Middle East would not work very well. I think it is true that our "being there" has fueled their hatred of us, however, this philosophy alone seems to underestimate the evil at work in these Muslim terrorists.
This is the only thing I have found so far to dislike about Ron Paul. If it weren't for this one issue, I would vote for him with no reservations. I love his strict take on the Constitution, not to mention his honesty and intelligence. I mean...the man actually READS the legislation that he votes on in Congress! What a bizarre notion.
I still think that the primary next year will be the biggest election. A third party candidate doesn't have much chance in November, but if we elect a dud for the Republican nomination next spring (e.g. any of the current frontrunners), I will definitely be voting for a third party myself in November. I've heard the Constitution Party might ask Jerome Corsi to run on their ticket. In my opinion, this is not "throwing away your vote". I just don't agree with the idea that we should only support candidates that might possibly be able to win. That seems monopolistic to me. Kind of like saying we have to choose only between Wal-Mart and Target, and forget the little Mom-and-Pop store down the road because they can't compete anyway and they'll only go out of business next year anyway. Well, if we all gave our support to the best candidate despite their perceived "electability", then some of the better candidates at the bottom of the polls actually would have a chance now, wouldn't they?
Here's my topic today: Ron Paul, 2008 Republican Primary candidate. There's only one thing I don't quite understand about this guy, and that is his stand against the Iraq war. He says that it should have never begun in the first place. But it is unclear to me exactly what he would do as president, were he to be elected next year, about national security in the Middle East and Muslim terrorism in general. I know he would be strengthening the borders here and enforcing immigration laws (now there's an idea!). I'm not an expert in military matters (obviously), but it seems to me that just having our military suddenly leave the Middle East would not work very well. I think it is true that our "being there" has fueled their hatred of us, however, this philosophy alone seems to underestimate the evil at work in these Muslim terrorists.
This is the only thing I have found so far to dislike about Ron Paul. If it weren't for this one issue, I would vote for him with no reservations. I love his strict take on the Constitution, not to mention his honesty and intelligence. I mean...the man actually READS the legislation that he votes on in Congress! What a bizarre notion.
I still think that the primary next year will be the biggest election. A third party candidate doesn't have much chance in November, but if we elect a dud for the Republican nomination next spring (e.g. any of the current frontrunners), I will definitely be voting for a third party myself in November. I've heard the Constitution Party might ask Jerome Corsi to run on their ticket. In my opinion, this is not "throwing away your vote". I just don't agree with the idea that we should only support candidates that might possibly be able to win. That seems monopolistic to me. Kind of like saying we have to choose only between Wal-Mart and Target, and forget the little Mom-and-Pop store down the road because they can't compete anyway and they'll only go out of business next year anyway. Well, if we all gave our support to the best candidate despite their perceived "electability", then some of the better candidates at the bottom of the polls actually would have a chance now, wouldn't they?
Labels: politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home