Thursday, January 03, 2008

Ron Paul

This has been a tough year for choosing a candidate. Today I'm here to tell you why I'll be voting for Ron Paul.

First, who else could I vote for?

Life is sacred. This is not politics, this is ethics, folks. Tell me, if a president said that it was okay if people wanted to kill their four year olds, that he wouldn't outlaw the places were you could take them to be murdered, would you consider the guy? Even if he made it clear that he would never want to murder his four year old? Does that make it clearer for some of you that think you can avoid that issue? That four year old, that baby, could be your future grandchild. Are you okay with that? If you are, then you have bigger problems than I can deal with right now.

But let me just say. No culture that has allowed this has survived. It takes very little time to digress into euthanasia and the elimination of all with special needs, or anyone deemed less than desirable. The Jews and mentally handicapped children in Nazi Germany, the elderly in Holland today, the second children in China could testify to this. If they hadn't already been slaughtered. Because someone thought that that wasn't the most important issue.

Ron Paul is pro-life. He is an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4000 babies, never has considered performing an abortion, and has made it clear that it was never necessary to save the life of a mother. Every pro-life politician has a different line of attack for changing the progress of abortion in America. Ron Paul's choice is consistent with his platform of limiting the federal government. He wants to obliterate federal opinion on the matter, making it a state issue. This would throw out Roe v. Wade and most states would immediately outlaw abortion completely when freed of the meddlesome federal courts. Ron Paul has made it clear that he is running for life and liberty, and that that life begins at conception.

Few choices remain with even some who claim pro-life status being seriously questionable. Mike Huckabee is one exception. He is pro-life and his position papers read well, but his political track record is anything but a recommendation. Even Ron Paul's most adamant opposers will say that his track record is flawless. I don't always agree, but he knows what he believes, and votes it consistently. Integrity. I'll take that. At least I know what to expect.

Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. This is the highest and most forgotten, and most twisted law of our land. If you know anything about the Constitution and our founder's intentions for it, then you will see that Ron Paul's entire platform is mirroring those very intentions.

I wavered on Ron Paul because of his foreign policy. Not that I necessarily disagree with it, It's just a messy subject. He attracts a lot of the anti-war people because he's the only Republican that's against the war in Iraq - he wants a full immediate withdrawal. While this seems like a lousy solution, I surely don't expect Iraq to become a peaceful democracy and stay that way in this life. I appreciate that his stance on it has been consistent from the beginning and, like everything else he does, is based on the Constitution. He won't support it, because it is not a war declared by Congress, and is therefore unconstitutional. He says he is not antiwar, just a non-interventionist - and he can quote a bunch of founders on that being there intent for our country. He's also made it clear that just as we do not go and buy things that we cannot afford, we can not fight all over the globe when our nation is in debt. We will turn into someone else's slaves.

The Patriot Act is a gross violation of our freedom, and Ron Paul seeks to restore our right to habeas corpus.

So his foreign policy stance and other of his more libertarian positions seem to be why a lot of really conservative people don't like him. I'm still not sure how I feel about all of that, but in every other regard he is the small government, no IRS, no Dept of Ed, etc guy I've been dreaming about since high school. All of these things conservatives complain about, he is ready to take on. He has a vision, and a consistent record. He believes that morality must start with the individual and be built from the inside out, not the federal government in. He is a believer that doesn't hide the fact, but refuses to use his faith to garner votes. He is loved by the home school community and fights for their right to freely educate their children. He has been married to the same woman for fifty years. He really seems to be a man of principle and a staunch Constitutionalist. This year was the first national caucus. he garnered 50% of the republican caucuses. The media hates him and purposefully cuts him out.

When I approach this election in terms of choosing a candidate, I'm putting on my hundred year glasses. In a hundred years, the war in Iraq will be a blip on the timeline. I appreciate all of the good that our troops are doing there. We have a lot of great Americans doing a lot of great things, but this is not my main issue. In one hundred years the continued assault on our civil liberties will have consequences. They will have ceased to exist as the Constitution continues to be regarded as an archaic document. We cannot see the future, but this could be our last opportunity. How will our grandchildren judge us if we take the safe path? Maybe it's time to go out on a limb. Time to say, "Enough! Not on our watch!"

Oh, and by the way, some people don't believe that he could win a general election. I believe that he has a much better chance of winning it than Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee only appeals to one voting sector. He will not gain swing or crossover votes. Ron Paul crosses party lines. This may occassionally bring out some unsavory-looking supporters, but the point is, he has supporters on more than one side of the fence. And frankly, folks, that wins elections.

Check out Ron Paul. And maybe you'll find that you, too, can dare to believe.

Tell me what you think.


Anonymous said...

Thanks, Alicia.

But...what's the Constitution? :/

Lindsey @ Enjoythejourney said...

That was really good Alicia. You sum up my feelings pretty well too.

I'm very much a libertarian at heart and that IS what I like about Paul---he wants to get back to truly following the constitution and not allowing "international law" and all the bunk we've allowed in recent years to guide our government. I'm all for SMALL, conservative government.

But the foreign policy/nat'l security issues are really big for me. In fact, if you put my issues in order of importance, I personally put foreign policy above abortion issues. I'm staunchly pro life, but I don't make it my #1 factor in voting because I don't believe we will ever see it overturned in America. As much as I would LOVE to see it happen, I don't see it, even with a true libertarian as president. Why? Because we still have plenty of democrats in the hosue and senate to be pro choice and push and push that direction.

At best, I see Paul, if elected President, allowing states to decide on abortion issues, and that is a farce too. There is a big difference in the Bible Belt south and California.

Anyhow, I wrote too much again, but I thank you for your well thought out response, and again...He just might get my vote. I still don't know.

I'm curious to see how all this plays out in the coming months.

I will admit fully that the media isn't being fair to him. That stinks. Because if he were to get more press time, he might actually get into the houses of people who vote, but just dont' keep up with online discussions much. Right now, that is about the only way to hear what Paul is Because he sure isn't getting press time.

Wendy said...

Good to read this. I'm still not sure who I'll be voting for. I need to learn a little more.

Thanks for sharing this.

Leigh Ann said...

I love a good political discussion among friends!! The one statement I would differ with is that in 100 yrs. Iraq will be a "blip".

If we lose this "war on terror", we will have no America. I realize the Constitution is of utmost importance, but really, if we curl up in a ball & let the terrorists win over there, they will come after at us, again. We have got to keep at this war. I cannot vote for someone who thinks we should just pack it up & come home.

Keep talking!! I love friendly conversation on all this. Hope I don't sound too critical.

carrie said...

I don't mom is waaaaaayyy liberal and very very pro-choice and SHE likes Huckabee's stand on a lot of things...I think he'll cross some lines. I haven't really read enough about Ron Paul to decide if I like him much I'm a big Huck fan...

Alicia said...

Okay, I may be getting in over my head here, but...
The "War on Terror" may not be a blip on the timeline, but the war in Iraq could be. While there are corellations to be made, the Iraqi country didn't come over and attack us, Al Quada did. The Middle East (Iraq included)will likely always be a scene of unrest. But if we don't continue to stand in the middle of it, then it seems we'd have a better chance of avoiding the fallout. I've always considered myself to be pro-war. You know, overcome the media bias and support the president , etc. But as I've read Ron Paul's position on the war, everything's been about as clear as mud. He really makes a lot of sense, but it's not the logic that I'm used to embracing. I guess that I feel like this war is more like the Gulf War than WWI and WWII. Really what happens next could truly determine whether it is a blip or not. Can we create a peaceful free Iraq in a nation with no history of the foundational beliefs necessary to support democracy (see Democracy in America by de Tocqueville)? What is the goal there now? Like I said, I think I'm in over my head. How about a congressman with lots of experience's opinion? I believe that Dr. Paul is all about finding the specific people responsible instead of waging a broadscale war. He wants to bring the troops home both to remove the bone of contention from these terrorists (us being in their homelands) and to protect our own country. This is a scary issue. Here are some articles to get a real feel for where Dr. Paul is coming from:

1) this article shows Paul's initial response to handling 9/11:


3) and many more articles here

Alicia said...

Well, Carrie, maybe you're right. Your man did well in Iowa tonight. I'd certainly rather see him win than many of the other Republican candidates.

Jacki said...

I have paid little attention to Ron Paul at the beginning, becuase I didn't think he would get very far. He has! Maybe with all the attention on candidates such as Clinton and Obama, he will slide right into the White House and surprise us all!

I am really not sure who I will vote for. On one hand, I welcome change to the White House, other than old white men. On the other hand, I don't think Hillary Clinton is the woman I want in office.

But about Ron Paul....I agree with some things and disagree with others. The Patriot Act and his foreign policy being some of the issues I disagree with.

I support the Patriot Act, because, well...there are a lot of "behind the scenes" stuff that the American public is not aware of. I worked in this field for several years before staying home with Emma. I helped develop telecommunications equipment for the US and other governments for the purposes of finding the "bad guys." I know why we need it, how it actually works behind the scenes.

But well....anywho...thanks for bringing this up!

jodi said...

Would you mind if I copied and posted your entire post on my blog? (I'll happily link back to yours for the credit of having written it and for people to read the comments). I just know some people wouldn't link over if I only post the link, and this is too important of an issue...


Dana said...

Thank you for a very reasoned support of Dr. Paul. I like him on most of the domestic issues, but I, too, have concerns with foreign policy. If it weren't for the fact that I have this sneaking suspicion that it doesn't matter how we deal with the Middle East, "they" will do what they can to strike again, I would be much more vocal in support of him.

As it is, I wish he were taken more seriously because I would really love domestic politics discussed at that level. Why do we argue about conservative vs. liberal plans for spending money on whatever program rather than discussing whether or not said program should even exist?

Because both sides have begun to view the government as their agent for changing the culture. And that isn't what culture is for.

If we could have Reagan back, I would be a happy camper.

Dana said...

Sorry, I meant that isn't what government is for. Silly me...I need sleep.

Mrs. "M" said...

Found you through Leslie.....interesting read. I have lived outside the US for over ten years and sadly have paid little attention to politics. This election has my interest though. You remind me a bit of my friend at Stepping Heavenward. You guys would drink lots of coffee and talk for hours. You can find her blog on my side bar :o)