It's stunning -- bordering on embarassing -- that the 2008 Presidential Campaign is already underway, and it's only June of 2007. Perhaps this is a reflection of the country's total loss of patience with George W. Bush, though more likely it's a side effect of the presidential primary oneupmanship that could possibly have the first votes cast in December. Absurd, but I guess that's states' jealousy of New Hampshire more than anything else. I suppose, though, that this is the closest America gets to an "opposition leader", which most countries seem to have and whose existence they take for granted.
In what looks to be a record-sized candidate field, even more, I think, than the 62 candidates appearing on the ballot in New Hampshire in 1992 -- 25 Republicans, 36 Democrats and one Libertarian -- there are many angles, views, approaches, and proposals for future policy. Nobody is bulletproof, and nearly everyone has a significant flaw of some type. The great thing about that is it produces some wonderful political space opera.
One candidate raising far more than their fair share of eyebrows is Ron Paul. His political career is singularly unique. Although a 10 term Republican representative, he is not a Party Man. His nickname amongst his comrades is "Dr. No" -- a reference to his still-active obstetrics practice (he's delivered over 4000 babies) combined with his unflinching willingness to vote against any bill that does not meet his strict standards for constitutionality. If you call him a Conservative, think less George Bush and more Barry Goldwater. It would be more accurate to call him a Libertarian (and in 1988, we did -- officially -- in his only previous presidential bid) because his voting record matches that adjective very well. His own party has no love for him -- in the '90s the party gerrymandered his district to elect a *Democrat* just to get him out of office, but no Democrat would dare face him.
As pure a fiscal conservative as was ever cast, non-interventionist in his foreign policy to the point that his opponents pose him as "isolationist", yet an ardent opponent of the War on Drugs, the PATRIOT Act, and the only Republican to vote against war against Iraq in 2002. In the 2nd Republican debate, he sent Rudolph Giuliani into an apoplectic fit for stating that the 9/11 attacks were the result of 50 years of interventionist and imperialist foreign policy in the middle east, the Iraq War being only the latest insult. The statement so incensed the rest of the Republican Party that some aparatchiks actually wanted to ban him from future debates (which in itself is quite telling about the Republicans in general and neo-cons specifically). They backpedaled after they realized just how bad they were making themselves look.
He ardently supports limited government, privacy, free speech, free association, free trade, property rights, and gun rights. He opposes eminent domain, warrantless searches, the anti-flag burning amendment, the national ID card, and secret wiretapping of Americans. He supports a defensive military, preferring to conquer the world with trade and ideas instead of building an empire, but opposes the UN and the WTO. He opposes centralization of government power, for whatever reason. On all of these things, I'm solidly with him.
He's not huge on the separation of church and state, but not because he's a Christian zealot, but rather because he views suppressing all religious expression in public life to be contrary to free speech, expression, and religion.
His pro-life stance is based on his career as an obstetrician, and although he personally opposes abortion, he has voted against many anti-abortion bills that would curtail other liberties, such as interstate travel of minors to states that permit abortions, and he opposes the death penalty (unusual among Republicans and downright rare among Protestants). He may oppose federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, but he also opposes the Federal government's attempts to stop states from legalizing assisted suicide. He opposes Roe v. Wade on the basis that it's bad constitutional politics, and that it's a states' rights issue, not because he seeks to ban abortions nationwide on a religious basis. He has written, in fact, that "while Roe v Wade is invalid, a Federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." He writes frequently and eloquently from the pro-life perspective, but never proposes to use Federal power to impose it on the country. While I would prefer a pro-choice presidential candidate, at least he doesn't seem bent on forcing his beliefs on the country.
Every election cycle, I vote Libertarian, because that is where my political beliefs dwell. I don't see it as throwing away my vote, but as voting my conscience. Ron Paul gives me, for perhaps one brief flicker of a moment, a chance to cast a ballot for someone with a chance of winning, however remote. I don't think he could possibly get the Republican nomination, because the neo-con imperialist hawks and the lunatic fringe fundamentalist Christians have a shared stranglehold on the party, but I'll enjoy the Ron Paul spectacle while it lasts.
In what looks to be a record-sized candidate field, even more, I think, than the 62 candidates appearing on the ballot in New Hampshire in 1992 -- 25 Republicans, 36 Democrats and one Libertarian -- there are many angles, views, approaches, and proposals for future policy. Nobody is bulletproof, and nearly everyone has a significant flaw of some type. The great thing about that is it produces some wonderful political space opera.
One candidate raising far more than their fair share of eyebrows is Ron Paul. His political career is singularly unique. Although a 10 term Republican representative, he is not a Party Man. His nickname amongst his comrades is "Dr. No" -- a reference to his still-active obstetrics practice (he's delivered over 4000 babies) combined with his unflinching willingness to vote against any bill that does not meet his strict standards for constitutionality. If you call him a Conservative, think less George Bush and more Barry Goldwater. It would be more accurate to call him a Libertarian (and in 1988, we did -- officially -- in his only previous presidential bid) because his voting record matches that adjective very well. His own party has no love for him -- in the '90s the party gerrymandered his district to elect a *Democrat* just to get him out of office, but no Democrat would dare face him.
As pure a fiscal conservative as was ever cast, non-interventionist in his foreign policy to the point that his opponents pose him as "isolationist", yet an ardent opponent of the War on Drugs, the PATRIOT Act, and the only Republican to vote against war against Iraq in 2002. In the 2nd Republican debate, he sent Rudolph Giuliani into an apoplectic fit for stating that the 9/11 attacks were the result of 50 years of interventionist and imperialist foreign policy in the middle east, the Iraq War being only the latest insult. The statement so incensed the rest of the Republican Party that some aparatchiks actually wanted to ban him from future debates (which in itself is quite telling about the Republicans in general and neo-cons specifically). They backpedaled after they realized just how bad they were making themselves look.
He ardently supports limited government, privacy, free speech, free association, free trade, property rights, and gun rights. He opposes eminent domain, warrantless searches, the anti-flag burning amendment, the national ID card, and secret wiretapping of Americans. He supports a defensive military, preferring to conquer the world with trade and ideas instead of building an empire, but opposes the UN and the WTO. He opposes centralization of government power, for whatever reason. On all of these things, I'm solidly with him.
He's not huge on the separation of church and state, but not because he's a Christian zealot, but rather because he views suppressing all religious expression in public life to be contrary to free speech, expression, and religion.
His pro-life stance is based on his career as an obstetrician, and although he personally opposes abortion, he has voted against many anti-abortion bills that would curtail other liberties, such as interstate travel of minors to states that permit abortions, and he opposes the death penalty (unusual among Republicans and downright rare among Protestants). He may oppose federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, but he also opposes the Federal government's attempts to stop states from legalizing assisted suicide. He opposes Roe v. Wade on the basis that it's bad constitutional politics, and that it's a states' rights issue, not because he seeks to ban abortions nationwide on a religious basis. He has written, in fact, that "while Roe v Wade is invalid, a Federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." He writes frequently and eloquently from the pro-life perspective, but never proposes to use Federal power to impose it on the country. While I would prefer a pro-choice presidential candidate, at least he doesn't seem bent on forcing his beliefs on the country.
Every election cycle, I vote Libertarian, because that is where my political beliefs dwell. I don't see it as throwing away my vote, but as voting my conscience. Ron Paul gives me, for perhaps one brief flicker of a moment, a chance to cast a ballot for someone with a chance of winning, however remote. I don't think he could possibly get the Republican nomination, because the neo-con imperialist hawks and the lunatic fringe fundamentalist Christians have a shared stranglehold on the party, but I'll enjoy the Ron Paul spectacle while it lasts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.