I've been intending to post this for a while...because Anne never would ;) But it is about time people started to consider what it means to actually be a conservative. Here is a simple point system...if you think of Ronald Reagan as a conservative, you get points but if you think George W Bush is a conservative, you lose points...lots and lots of points...every point you ever had ;)
Anyhow, the lack of conservative principles in the current "first-tier" Republican presidential candidates is amazing. Although the eagerness of evangelical conservatives to embrace an apparent nominee in the name of "beating Hillary" is also amazing. If we actually want to reform the Republican party, why not take a look at some of the second-tier candidates? For that matter why not take a look at Ron Paul? It would be nice to once again have a President who actually thinks the Constitution is more than just an ancient document. Don't let neo-conservatism bias your opinion of him..below are links to his speech at the Value Voters Summit...it should be educational.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGu-da6XvJQ
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swkqhsp1syo
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRWqJvBm9U
- Caleb
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
13 comments:
Sorry, I didn't find his speech to be very educational. He still wont get my vote! The guy is crazy!
Good try Caleb:-P
I had a long post about Paul being a constitutionalist but auto-correct turned it into "institutionalist" w/out me noticing. That's why I deleted the post above. Bottom line, until Ron Paul denies being part of, believing in, etc all the Truther crap (9/11 an inside job, government knew of the attack but chose not to act, etc) then he won't get my vote. Right now I'm leaning toward Huckabee.
Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 truther, arguing the issue is not a conspiracy but a bureaucracy.[36][37] He says detractors "try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that's not my position."[36] Of the 9/11 Commission Report, he believes, "The main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not ... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war .... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."[36][39] He does not think the government would stage such an attack.[40] When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the government", Paul emphasized, "Absolutely not.;[41] John Gibson of Fox News, confronted Paul about "associating" himself with Alex Jones by being interviewed on his radio program, asking "Will you say right here and now that you completely disavow the 9/11 truth movement and the whole idea that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 attack?" Paul responded, "Yes, I do."[42] John Gibson does not accept Paul's explicit disavowel of the truth movement and continues to claim Paul believes the government staged the 9/11 attack: "9/11 truthers evidently raised millions for Ron Paul. Why doesn't he just admit that he's with them, blaming the U.S. government for the 9/11 attacks?"[43] Paul says both Jones and Gibson "try to put words in my mouth."[42]
[edit]
Dad,
I used to lean toward Huckabee, but since he seems hellbent on raising taxes and implementing such mindless and unconstitutional programs as a 'nationwide smoking ban', i can't in good conscience vote for him (in the primary anyway - in the general election i'll immediately morph into a single issue voter). it seems like christian conservatives are the most willing to give up so many freedoms in the name of religion and have totally forgotten that you CAN have a candidate who is pro-life and still wants to preserve our constitutional rights. i will say that personal Paul is a little wacky for my taste, but i do wish there were more candidates with his convictions.
Anne
Yes Catie, this is what happens when you combine liberal college education and public school teacher mindset ;)
hear, hear, Big C! We think Paul might be the only way to go. We are of the same opinion that all (okay, maybe almost all) Republicans are no where near Reagan-conservative. Bush is a sad and sorry disappointment to many...not us b/ we didnt vote for him! Constitutionalists all the way!
-D&A
I agree about Huckabee's attempts to "force" Americans to be more healthy are totally lame. Leave me alone. Wish Paul would distance himself from consp. theorists more, b/c he's asking for heckling. Can't vote Constitution Party, since they don't care at all about a global defense presence. And its looking like there won't even be the "single issue" for me to fall back on, if its a Rudy/Hill vote. What a country.
I personally think Huckabee is a great guy, clearly his integrity can't be questioned. Unfortunately as Presidential candidate he also seems to think that the best answer to every question is the Federal Government. It seems to me that a lot of candidates don't seem to understand that what makes someone a great Governor IS not what makes someone a great President.
Which is one area where Thompson is superior -- a good handle on federalism, and what to do about it.
Actually I had forgotten about Thompson, although I have some issues w/ him too. I've read several of the disclaimers from the Paul camp about 9/11 but I've also heard him waffle on TV when asked direct questions. Problem is some of the strictest constitutionalists don't understand that we ARE in a war against Islam. Not wanting to believe that doesn't change anything. Not taking the fight to them would be a serious mistake that would eventually cost thousands of lives here in the West. At the end of the day I can never vote for a Democrat so I will vote for Rudy/Fred/John/Mike/fill in the blank, mostly because of the types of judges they would nominate for the Supreme Court.
I'm just not at all convinced that the judges Rudy would appoint would be much different than what Hillary would get through. We know he's fine w/ abortion, so why would he choose judges who think otherwise?
Now Caleb, unlike you I will not judge your education, or should I say lack of education, neither will I lower myself to degrading your place of employment.
I am just not convinced he is interpreting the Constitution correctly. In fact I disagree with how he interprets the Constitution!
**And no I am not mad at you, I just work all day and can not spend time on the computer to respond as promptly as you seem to be able to.
Post a Comment