Vote for America's future. Vote Green.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
My endorsement for President:
I know this is a bit late in the game, but I've finally found a Presidential candidate I can support without reservation: Dr. Ron Paul, who, although he's a Republican, more closely embodies the ideals of the Founding Fathers and who more consistently favors a vast reduction of government than any of the other candidates from the two major parties. I disagree with him substantially on social issues and on immigration, but far from being the least of all evils, he's a man of integrity. I often say that I would rather honestly disagree with someone than dishonestly agree with them, and this is such an instance, though even the disagreements are not as significant as with other candidates. I know he will never be President, but if he were elected to that office, our nation would be in excellent hands indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I could handle having Paul in the White House. I think he may be just about the only honest politician in either party's stable of candidates. There are areas in which I also have substantial disagreements with him, but I believe he loves our country, respects our laws, and would actually work to uphold the Constitution.
You might want to take a closer look at Paul's record.Click here
I think the NARAL rating of 0% is somewhat misleading, because he did vote against restricting minors from traveling across state lines to get abortions. Also, he voted against making it a federal crime to harm a fetus during the commission of another crime.
His economic views could scarcely be better, given the current situation. On civil rights issues, I'm a little bit to the left of him, but at least he has some sanity about it. His stances on crime and drugs, again, I'm a bit to the left of him, but I think he's one of the few who are at least on the right track. On education, I agree with him a lot more than I disagree. On energy and the environment, I disagree with him substantially. I'm kinda mixed when it comes to his ideas for foreign policy. However, his stances on government reform and free trade are, at least, an excellent start, and I agree with his stance on gun control. Healthcare and Homeland Security are other areas where I agree with many of his stances. I disagree substantially with his stances on immigration policy. The rest, I more or less agree with him.
So, Let's Talk, thank you for the link, but you've only further cemented my choice. I may be a radical in my own way, but I'm smart enough to take what I can get, and he's the closest thing out there to what I believe.
I find that I'm too far to the left to support Paul and at this point I'm searching for the right Democrat to fill that vacant office "President", we have a dictatorship right now.
Edwards remind me of Romney for some reason and he seems to soft. Right now I'm just not sure whom I would vote for to lead this country, but it has to be someone that has more of a left view than not.
Paul and Gravel are more alike than not, so if I had to pick one it would be Gravel.
I've read more about Mike Gravel, and frankly, he makes me want to projectile vomit. His main "legislative accomplishment" was to anger pretty much everybody in Alaska and be ignored elsewhere. I think it is more than a bit disingenuous to equate Ron Paul with Mike Gravel.
If you could, please let me know the source of your information on Gravel. I read from Gravel and Gravel..Alaska
mandelbrot's chaos, if there's some negative information about Gravel let me know. I surely would love to read up on something that I have missed about him.
I don't suppose Al Gore is going to change his mind and run, eh? :-(
At least Ron Paul voted against the war, but I don't really want him for President.
He's really a Libertarian and would probably dismantle a lot of programs we need.
I'm not leaning towards anyone that has announced or pre announced and I'm not happy about all the primaries being putsched forward, it not good for the democratic process.
And $35 a head to vote in a straw poll? What kind of "democracy" does that represent?
I'm not happy with the primary process period. I think we tended to get better candidates, on average, from both parties under the caucus system. I agree that the straw poll is not even close to being a proper example of representative democracy, not only because of the $35 fee to vote, but also because the sample size was too small and skewed to be truly representative of the Iowan electorate.
LT, what I don't like about Gravel is that he's in favor of ballot initiatives, much like what has brought California so much grief. The "Fair Tax" proposal of his also looks like a nightmare in the making. And as I've stated with other candidates, I wonder how he'd fund his particular universal healthcare scheme. It sounds good, but where's the money, and how will costs be controlled? Will that happen at the expense of the "covered"? In short, the government he proposes is much, much larger than anything I would feel comfortable having and is not anything I could support.
$35 a head would tend to limit the scope of who votes, and that's their purpose.
Iowa is a funny place, with funny people, but then again so is the rest of America and the world.
In my opinion Paul is just a spoiler, he couldn't lead if he had to and his showing as a Republitard camp like some sort of sideshow geek just emphasizes it.
Post a Comment