The election of 2008 looms near, as so many others have before. In 2000 and 2004, we were faced with fiascoes. We’ve had the greenest president that never was (Florida, what happened?) and a man who lost because he was the world class flip-flopper. What we were left with is arguably the most idiotic president in the history of
America. This time, though, I have hope.
First of all, this is the first election where most of the candidates are fresh. We have many new faces, all rising to the challenge of leading America to new frontiers.
We hear about some of these new frontiers non-stop: we could have the first female president, the first African-American president, or the first Latino president.
That’s right — I said a Latino president. Jay Leno has called this guy “the strongest candidate you’ve never heard of.” Let me introduce Bill Richardson.
Richardson first caught my eye when I saw him on ABC News over the weekend. He was incredibly articulate in answering questions on the Iraq war. To me, the measure of a politician is his or her rhetoric. I watched Hilary Clinton give a speech at a fundraiser geared toward women and I left feeling flatly uninspired. This wasn’t so when I saw Richardson in action. This was on TV, no less, while Clinton was there in person. I made a silent vow to myself that I’d learn more about this man.
Here are just a few things I have learned so far.
Richardson has been the governor of New Mexico since 2002. He has served as the Secretary of Energy and was an ambassador to the United Nations.
This man has managed to transform New Mexico from one of the poorest states in the union into a thriving part of a stronger America. He encouraged companies to move to New Mexico with tax incentives for energy-efficient businesses. Now, the state is becoming widely known for its wind, solar, and biofuel industries. Hundreds of new jobs have made New Mexico an increasingly appealing state for many prospective employees.
Richardson ferociously opposed building a border fence, stating, “It’s a terrible symbol.” His solution to the illegal immigration problem and terrorism is tightening border security, not building a fence to divide countries. Berlin Wall redux, anyone?
He was instrumental in making Darfur part of the political dialogue, thanks to his stint with the United Nations and extensive foreign policy experience. He led a variety of international missions in which he established relationships with many foreign leaders, including the president of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Al-Bashir was willing to see Richardson because he was comfortable with Richardson’s leadership style. Richardson pressed al-Bashir to allow U.N. peacekeepers into the Darfur region.
Richardson could be the nation’s first bilingual president, speaking fluent Spanish as well as English. Imagine a version of Dr. Robert Davila, Gallaudet’s president, in the White House! But I digress…
Richardson favors withdrawing the troops from Iraq in six months–completely. If elected, He has a seven-point plan for redirecting these troops to areas where the presence of Al-Qaeda is strong, like Afghanistan.
He is a strong supporter of domestic partnership, legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, stem cell research, civil unions, and national health care coverage .
By his mandate, each child in the state of New Mexico gets health coverage up to age 5.
His book, Leading By Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, is slated to be released in November.
His fundraising is modest in comparison to his Democratic counterparts. Between April 1 and June 30, Richardson raised $7.1 million, bringing his year to date fundraising total to more than $13 million (compare this to $27 million raised by Clinton, and $32.5 million raised by Obama). And yet, he doesn’t seem to flinch.
Perhaps it is because this dark horse is gaining ground. As the media frenzy centers around Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, he’s quietly garnering support from Democrats and Republicans.
Is this the way to entice voters? Will this approach sell me on Richardson? These thoughts force me to consider how I will choose a candidate. As I look at the options, I remind myself who I am first. I am a feminist. I am a supporter of a multicultural society. I am a citizen who cares about social justice and the environment. I will not vote Clinton because she is a woman. I will not vote for Obama because he is African-American. I will not vote for Richardson because he’s Latino. I will not vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon. I will not vote for Thompson because he’s an actor on Law and Order. But I see something in Richardson that appeals to my interests, and I believe the interests of many Americans. Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that Richardson is the ideal candidate. I am not on this ride saying he’s the perfect guy. I’m just saying that just maybe there is a reason to hope if a person like him is actually running for president.
Jon Stewart of The Daily Show has called Bill Richardson “Batman.” Batman for president? Perhaps this candidate doesn’t have to be a comic fantasy; with our help, he could be a reality.
An American hero… even a cynic like me is rooting for that.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
My priority right now is voting for someone with guts to undo the damages created by Bush (U.S. economy, reduction of our freedoms, weakening of Constitution, damage to our relationship with the rest of the world, etc).
And I believe that person is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Besides, I voted for Bill Clinton both terms, and he did a fantastic job, and with him behind Hillary, I feel that they’ll do a good job of cleaning up the mess.
They did that after Reagan and papa Bush, and they can do it again.
Ditto. Sometimes I feel like we are living in Cold War again now, seeing Bush’s paranoia.
The U.S. economy? Hasn’t it been thriving during the most of President Bush’s mandate (don’t even try to bring up the recent subprime crisis because that’s a whole other topic).
Your assertion of the US economy having been damaged during Bush’s mandate just shows how you haven’ really paid attention to what he really did and worked for.
Are you serious? Far too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and manufacturing jobs have been hit HARD, with no other industry being encouraged to fill the void. You need two incomes to live independently nowadays, with the minimum wage being so low.
Economy thriving.. I think not!
Certainly, the economy is thriving. You’re saying two different things, the economy itself versus our trade deficit. There is no reciprocity in outsourcing, only the export of domestic jobs. That’s why the U.S. is currently running a $125 billion trade deficit with China alone, a third world country. Yet at the same time, Sen. Hillary Clinton supports outsourcing.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/S.....1Df03.html
Go figure.
Yet, at the same time, outsourcing has helped our economy more than it has hurt us with the probable exception about the trade deficit.
And if you remove the income of the top 1% or so, you’ll see that the rest of us haven’t done much better during his years. You also may want to read this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....dget-cuts/
The top 1% are those who make $300,000 or more a year per the IRS data. They’re not called “middle class” by any stretch of the imagination.
http://tinyurl.com/39coxu
My point is that the 1 percenters enjoy almost all of the economical “gains” during Bush’s years, whereas average income in the middle class has fell.
And yours is?
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/.....94DF404482
Middle class are typically those who are between the top 10% and top 50%.
The economic gains by those “top 1%”
Secondly, pretty disenginous of using such a narrow comparison when you need to see the relationship between capital gains in 2000 vs 2005 when 2000 was the height of the internet bubble which translated more people getting paid and with higher income, of course. And then after 2000 the market went south, so did average income.
Ben, you need to look at the long term trend which shows continuously that average income has steadily keeping an upward pace over the years. All related to U.S. economy and thriving market. It’s all inter-related. Nice of the NYTimes to be purposely bias without showing readers long term trend and market (capital gains) connection.
Look at this graph here that shows both capital gains and average income since the early 1900s to 2004.
http://visualizingeconomics.co.....income.gif
What was your point then on showing the NYTimes biased report?
Also, why use “Bush years” when the NYTimes talked about average income from 2000 to that of in 2005? Bush was never in office in 2000. It was Clinton. In fact, in Clinton last year in office in 2000 aveage income DROPPED! While 2001 year average income continue to drop when Bush took office.
But from 2002 to 2004 average income GREW while Bush was in office. Why didn’t the NYTime mention that as well? And the captial gains or market connection? And so on?
What was your point of using “Bush years” when it was in fact it was incorrect since Bush took office in 2001, not 2000?
Also check out http://democrats.senate.gov/dp.....fs-110-1-8
You’re welcome to ignore the rhetorics on the first part- just scroll down and focus on the numbers.
Michele, I have the same priorities as you, but I believe Dr. Ron Paul is the only one who can carry those goals out, as he is not in the special interests pockets like Hillary is. Hillary is a part of the status quo and this country needs something DIFFERENT. Ron Paul will bring us back to the roots of our founding fathers. Google him and check his ideas out.
Hi,
You know, I’m not well-versed in the stengths or weaknesses of the various candidates (R or D), but just to throw something into the mix, here, maybe all the talk about “Our Founding Fathers” might not be the way to go, you know? They came from a time of muskets and we come frome a time of machine guns and smart bombs. Maybe they didn’t want to pay taxes to some foreign king but we come from a time where Iraqi pipeline woes will send the world’s fuel prices to the moon, and America’s real estate woes will cause people thousands of miles across the ocean to feel our pain right along with us.
I’m all for freedom and our basic core values but I just want a candidate who is not only read to deal with the world as it is but also do what he or she can to leave it a bit saner four years down the road…
And that’s pretty much what I’ll be looking for when I vote.
Chris, I appreciate your response, and understand your point. There was a blog posted a couple of days ago where Ron Paul supporters were asked what a Dr. Paul presidency would look like. Here is the link to that, so you could get an idea for yourself how various people view the outcome being. I personally think he is the one to satisfy your goal of leaving America a bit saner four years down the road.
http://donklephant.com/2007/08.....on-3-of-7/
The democrats seem anti-Iraq, but not anti-War (meaning Iran). The republicans, except for Paul (who is more of an old-school republican/libertarian) all want to stay the course in Iraq. Paul is the only one who has been saying the exact same thing since the 1970’s. His book about America and it’s foriegn policy is a huge eye-opener and I encourage anyone who wants to get a different angle on foriegn policy and the ideas and principles of America to check it out.
This is the first time I’ve heard of a Ron Paul. Admittedly enough, I don’t know much about the man himself. Since you mentioned about Obama Barack being inexperienced, may I ask how much of experience does Ron Paul have in politics?
Hi, Katherine.
Here is a link to a bio summarizing Paul s lengthy experience with politics.
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.htm
Hope that helps!
Dan, I never heard of Ron Paul, and took your suggestion by Googling him. Now I know who he is.
I’m not gonna vote for Ron Paul.
Why?
He’s a Republican.
If you’re one of those people who are easily confused by D & R candidates and you think you can’t tell the difference between any of them…then the next step is to vote with the PARTY.
In other words, if you cannot make up your mind about which candidate to choose, always go with the party, because ultimately the candidates will usually follow their party line when they do their jobs in Senate, Congress, or White House.
And…as a Deaf person, I don’t like what the Republican party stands for. As a woman, I don’t like what the Republican party stands for. As an American, I don’t like what the Republican party stands for, especially since they afflited themselves with too many religious fanatics (this started with Reagan and has only gotten worse over the years).
Michele,
You said you were not going to vote for Ron Paul simply because he is a republican. I am not sure if you did your research as I asked you to. Ron Paul is more of a libertarian/constitutionalist than a what a current republican is.
Looking at history, the republican party was the party that was always about smaller government, while the democrats have been the ones favoring bigger government and more social programs. As time has changed, it seems to me like the republican party has been hijacked by what people call neo-cons, who are all about globalization and pre-emptive war and big government. The majority of the leaders in the republican party are neo-connish. When Paul ran as a true republican, people from his own party tried to get the democrat running against him sent into office! Special interest lobbyists know that they are not welcome in his office, unlike 99% of his peers.
I am not “one of those people who are easily confused by Democrats and Republicans”. I think you might be the one who confused. My position is that the democrats and republicans are ALOT more similar than we think, and there s only two or three people in the race who seem to be the real thing: Paul, Kukinich and Gravel. Paul is the lone republican, and the other republicans are trying to get him off the debates, but his fan support is growing so massive day by day that uproar got him back on some of the debates. Gravel and Kukinich are running as Democrats.
I feel like our country has been fooled into the illusion of freedom of choice. Tweedledee A or Tweedeledum B. Paul is the first candidate in my lifetime who made me say “Oh wow! This guy is unlike any politician I’ve ever seen. He’s the real deal”.
Please try not to view it through “democrat” or “Republican” lens, but view it from the best candidate available.
In the Texas straw poll yesterday, the rules were changed a few weeks ago so that only Republican delegates from previous primaries were able to vote in this straw poll. Ron Paul supporters turned out by the HUNDREDS and were everywhere, yet were not allowed to vote because of this new rule change. A Paul bus filled with supporters arrived one minute late, and was not allowed to enter the building per GOP rules. It s all on youtube. In a building filled with GOP die horses who supported Bush, Paul finished third with 17% of the vote ANYWAY, not considering the fact that there were more Paul supporters outside the building that were not allowed to vote than there were actual people in the building!
Fox and CNN and the rest of the mass media have only just begun to show more about him, because his fan base is growing by leaps and bounds day by day. This is a guy who the people flushing our country down the toilet DO NOT WANT to be the president of the united states! To not vote for him just because he is a “republican” is exactly what is wrong with our country’s political system right now.
I come from a democratic household. I hated Bush and most republicans I knew in my lifetime. But I also knew Clinton was no angel either.
Could you clarify about “As a deaf person, I dont like what the republican party stands for?”. As for being a woman, I hope you understand that while Paul is pro-life and believes life starts at conception (he’s an OB-Gyn who has delivered over 4,000 babies), he is also pro-life as it relates to the death penalty, which makes his life views consistent at least compared to some other politicians. He also has said that he believes of abortion issues NOT being a federal matter, meaning Paul does not believe the federal governemnt has the right to declare that abortion is illegal or legal. He believes hot button issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and education should be left to the state to determine amongst the local communities who know their wants and needs the best.
I enjoy this discussion and welcome any opposing view points, because it is a learning process for all of us. The best thing about Paul to me is that this is the biggest grassroots campaign in modern US history as it relates to a re-awakening of an America that has been dumbed down into submission by the Republicrats and their good cop bad cop routine that has fooled us with lies every four years that they never manage to keep. Dr. Ron Paul is a rock, and you can easily find it all on the internet via googling him and his positions.
Dan, I did read Ron Paul’s website completely and carefully.
I also recognize that some of his positions aren’t in accord with those of the Republican party. But then again, many of his positions ARE in accord with those of the Republican party.
Despite some of his positions, he has chosen to represent himself as a member of the Republican party.
For me, that’s not a good thing. He should have either gone with Democrats or Green party or even Libertians so that his positions would be closer to these parties’ positions.
But the fact he didn’t…isn’t a good sign to me.
As for Ron Paul’s being the “biggest grassroots campaign in modern US history”…many people in this blog have told you that they have never heard of him. No, the true “biggest grassroots campaign in modern US history” honors goes to Howard Dean.
Now for what Republican party stands for as a Deaf person, as a woman, etc.:
-In my book, a politican who says s/he is “pro-life” is a bad thing. I’m pro-choice, and Bush has already successfully weakened abortion laws, and now Ron Paul wants to leave it to the states? Bad, bad, bad idea!!! There are many Bible-belt states that are just *dying* to make abortion totally illegal altogether. As a woman, I do not want to see any woman be left without that choice in any state.
And for the record, the Republican party is pro-life.
Now, as a Deaf person, I don’t like the Republican party record when dealing with people with disabilities. (In my previous post, I also didn’t add that I don’t like how the Republican party treats minorities and poor people.) The Republican party has an overwhelming record of being “bottom-line” with budgets, and often are very willing to cut areas in budgets that hit Deaf people, minorities and the poor the hardest.
Dan, look at the overall picture and ask yourself why minorities are often overwhelmingly Democrats and Deaf people are often overwhelmingly Democrats.
It’s a rarity to meet a Deaf Republican, as well as a gay Republican, a black Republican, a Latino Republican, etc.
And when I do meet one, I can’t help but ask myself, “why the hell would they go with Republicans, considering the abymssal record Republicans have with Deaf, gays, minorities, etc?!”
Paul’s not a democrat, and wouldn’t run as one. He ran as president with the Libertarian party in 1988. He is now called an independent republican, whatever that means.
We both know that in our current political climate that unless you win the nomination of one of the two major parties, you’re not gonna win the presidency. It’s generally accepted as fact. The only way Paul has a chance is by running in his party, which he feels has been hijacked by people with very different beliefs than he about a matter of areas.
About abortion, one would have to agree that many people disagree on this stance, and that it is a very controversial one that can be heatly debated. I understand your deep concerns about a president who is pro-life, and about a president who would leave it up to the states. If Roe versus Wade were to be overturned, and that it should be a state matter, I would think that a lot of the northern states would allow abortion, while many of the bible belt states would work to not allow it. The way I see it, the federal government should not have the right to impose something amongst all citizens in a country as divisive and diverse as ours. There are a lot of people out there who are pro life in this country, and by the federal government making sweeping decisions about the legality of abortion, those people get the shaft. If the government makes sweeping decisions about the illegality of abortion, the pro choice people get the shaft. It is a no win situation that should be left to the states, because the federal government was never designed to be the ones to make those decisions for the nation.
Regarding deaf people, again, please do not lump or pigeon hole Ron Paul in with the standard republicans. To be honest, I love your response, because it made me realize I know little about his voting record on disabilities and so forth, so I am gonna dig that information up for you and for myself.
However, I dislike SSI tremendously. I remember my times at Gallaudet watching the line of students at the Benson Hall Circle ATM at the crack midnight at the first of the month.
Too many of our young deaf population rely on SSI for their money, and mismanage it horribly. They grow into deaf adults who continue to live on it for their lives, and stay at home. It causes them to not motivate themselves to find jobs that are evidently “harder” than staying at home. I am sick of SSI, and would happily welcome it being reduced. I have friends who state that we really should not be under the ADA umbrella, and they are the most liberal people I know. They say we are more of a linguisitic minority than under the ADA law. By that sense, it would seem that the social programs created for us are actually what makes us more reliant on these systems for support than empowering ourselves to do something about it.
In your last point about minorities and deafies being mostly democratic, again you are lumping Paul in with the republicans. Google “democrats for ron paul reader comments” and read the comments from the people, not the writers. There s a lot of comments from democrats, libertarians, independents, and even republicans about Ron Paul out there on the web, because they can get past the fact that he is running as a “republican”.
I am off to research Ron on disabilities. Again, I love this dialogue going on.
Ron Paul on IDEA:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=822
“September 25, 2000
TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT
————
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: H8004]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H. Con. Res. 399, which celebrates the 25th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). My opposition to H. Con. Res. 399 is based on the simple fact that there is a better way to achieve the laudable goal of educating children with disabilities than through an unconstitutional program and thrusts children, parents, and schools into an administrative quagmire. Under the IDEA law celebrated by this resolution, parents and schools often become advisories and important decisions regarding a child’s future are made via litigation. I have received complaints from a special education administrator in my district that unscrupulous trial lawyers are manipulating the IDEA process to line their pockets at the expenses of local school districts. Of course, every dollar a local school district has to spend on litigation is a dollar the district cannot spend educating children.
IDEA may also force local schools to deny children access to the education that best suits their unique needs in order to fulfill the federal command that disabled children be educated `in the least restrictive setting,’ which in practice means mainstreaming. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment, however, some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe it is required by federal law, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.
On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner testified before the Education Committee that disabled children who are not placed in a mainstream classroom graduate from high school at a much higher rate than disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology.
IDEA also provides school personal with incentives to over-identify children as learning disabled, thus unfairly stigmatizing many children and, in a vicious cycle, leading to more demands for increased federal spending on IDEA also IDEA encourages the use of the dangerous drug Retalin for the purpose of getting education subsidies. Instead of celebrating and increasing spending on a federal program that may actually damage the children it claims to help, Congress should return control over education to those who best know the child’s needs: parents. In order to restore parental control to education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K-12 education expenses. My tax credit would be of greatest benefit to parents of children with learning disabilities because it would allow them to devote more of their resources to ensure their children get an education that meets the child’s unique needs.
In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that parents and local communities know their children so much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job of meeting a child’s needs than we in Washington. There is no way that my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of `Cookie Cutter’ approach. Thus, the best means of helping disabled children is to empower their parents with the resources to make sure their children receives an education suited to that child’s special needs, instead of an education that scarifies that child’s best interest on the altar of the `Washington-knows-best’ ideology.
I therefore urge my colleagues to join with me in helping parents of special needs children provide their children with a quality education that meets the child’s needs by repealing federal mandates that divert resources away from helping children and, instead, embrace my Family Education Freedom Act.”
Ron Paul on No Child Left Behind:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=781
Here is a page consisting of articles he has written on education:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=13
I can’t find much on Paul specifically as it relates to deaf people.
A life long democrats plea for other democrats to research Ron Paul:
http://www.rense.com/general77/ronn.htm
Hmm…. *siiigh* In every level of education, Elementary, Secondary, and Post-Secondary level.. focusing on students with disabilities, it’s a major challenge for this country, simply because….we’re being faced with another challenge: LANGUAGE. Now with that in the picture, look at how immigrants, or illegals (the word I despise) fall behind. There are cases where children, ESL (English as Second Language), are placed in “special education” simply because of the language barrier between Teachers, the student and student’s parents. Imagine the other type of messes we put on children. My question is this: “What is the true weakness of Education System?”
Language? Disability? Costs? Over-Population? Lack of sources? Lack of exposure of new cultures?
Which poses a new question: “What do the candidates know about Education? Are they depending upon simply statistics, and hearsays? Should this be up to the states? Federal?
On top of that, the oldest challenge comes in handy: Family’s economy. We all know that almost every school, including “Ivy” schools, lack parents’ attention or support simply because both parents are working. Why are both parents working? Oh, yeah, cost of living has skyrocketed, the real estates went up too high, everything that we pay for are shockingly on rise…. how do we resolve those things? I would disagree that parents knows best, but then again, aren’t we all parents? :-D
What am I asking here… simply babbling.
Oh, and about the Howard Dean comment, you ll find that Paul will overtake Dean before you know it. Dean s campaign was top down, while Paul has spent very little money and all of the work is being done by the grassroots campaign. Very soon his name will be a household item, and when that happens, people will begin to ask why they never heard of him until now. Dean also had that unfortunate incident where he got excited and screamed, then the media hammered him mercilessly. That was a shame.
How do you feel abt the DNC refusing to recognize Florida delegates vote at the convention next year unless they move back their primary vote ? Many democrats in FL are very upset about this. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have all said they will respect DNC and not campaign in FL.
Check this link out below…..
Democrats in California are supporting Ron Paul. There is a flyer there I cannot attach to this post, but if you go to this link, you’ll see the Bay Area Ron Paul meet up site at:
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/18/
If you scroll down to the near bottom by the Aug 28 entries, you ll see a flyer for Democrats for Ron Paul that you can open to see the file for yourself.
For those of you too lazy to search for it, here it is below in a non flyer form.
——————————-
“Democrats for Ron Paul: Find the true candidate for peace, freedom, and ethics in government”
Introduced bill to end Iraq War in 2007:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Iraq exit strategy: “We should just come home.”:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Voted against the Iraq war 2002:
Hillary No Paul YES
(Obama not in Congress in 2002)
Denounced doctrine of pre-emptive warfare:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Took off the table future pre-emptive strike on Iran:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Took off table future escalation of Afghanistan war:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Calls to bring US military home from all foreign nations:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Calls for foreign policy of military non-interventionism:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Will reduce foreign military expense by $500 billion:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Voted against the “Patriot” Act in 2002:
Hillary No Paul YES
(Obama not in Congress in 2002)
Calls to repeal “Patriot” Act:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Voted against mandatory national ID card act 2005:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Calls to end all government subsidies to corporations:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Receives millions from big corporations:
Hillary Yes Obama Yes Paul NO
Calls to end the “inflation” tax which hurts the poor:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Wrote bill to protect Social Security fund:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Calls to end federal war against medicinal marijuana:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Opposes delegation of Congressional authority to President:
Hillary No Obama(unknown) Paul YES
Calls to end failed federal war against marijuana users:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Opposes development of North American Union:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Spouse not associated with elitist Council on Foreign Relations:
Hillary No Obama No Paul YES
Isn’t this all too good to be true? My question would be, what are his priorities? What comes first, second, third? For example: Calls to end federal war against medicinal marijuana, YES for Paul. Okay, I’m impressed with his orthodox perspective, but how important is this to him? Does it feel like, because he’s being really different, that’s what catch our attention? Like Al Gore? Opposing delegation of Congressional authority to President, is Paul saying Yes based on what happened with Bush? What about Bill Clinton? Did he support or not support this? If he did not support this, and we’re saying that he’s a good president, isn’t that a contradiction that we, civilians, have? I don’t know.. I’m just babbling.
Plus if Hugo Chavez is trusted officially by our government, we will make for more powerful influence in foreign policy because he had been a blast of cool wind for his people. I am a Latino but I agree that I will only vote for a candidate that will pull our empire back to former glory, and hopefully (not holding my breath) converting us back to Just USA without an empire over the globe.
I’m not sure I agree with your Chavez sentence (but I am uneducated on this issue, so I need to research it first). In regard to your quote of “I agree that I will only vote for a candidate that will pull our empire back to former glory, and hopefully (not holding my breath) converting us back to Just USA without an empire over the globe.” I agree with you. Dr. Paul is the only candidate that will work towards making this happen.
Some will say, well GWB used this platform as well, and this got him elected as president. Well, 9-11 happened, and GWB went all war-crazy. Paul was in favor of a much more sensible solution to going after Bin Laden without making huge footprints in the middle east and deterioriating international relationships in that region even further, breeding more terrorists and radical islamic extremetism (sp).
Here is a link to an article he wrote the day after 9-11.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=630
Ron Paul one week after 9-11:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=218
Ron Paul voted against Patriot Act I and Patriot Act II:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=441
Here, he talks about Neo-Cons taking over the GOP:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=630
Finally, he writes about the hypocrisy in the Middle East:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=501
I’m not sure I agree with your Chavez sentence (but I am uneducated on this issue, so I need to research it first). From first glance, however, your statement seems to be a contradiction, because you want it to be a USA without an empire over the globe. Then you say you want us to officially trust chavez with the intention of us gaining powerful influence in foriegn policy.
The reality of it is that history has shown us that we are best off when we do not entangle ourselves with the complications of other countries and then become embroiled in their conflicts.
In regard to your quote of “I agree that I will only vote for a candidate that will pull our empire back to former glory, and hopefully (not holding my breath) converting us back to Just USA without an empire over the globe.” I agree with you. Dr. Paul is the only candidate that will work towards making this happen.
Some will say, “well, GWB used this platform as well, and this got him elected as president”. He got elected, and then 9-11 happened, and GWB went all war-crazy. Paul was in favor of a much more sensible solution to going after Bin Laden without making huge footprints in the middle east and deterioriating international relationships in that region even further, breeding more terrorists and radical islamic extremetism (sp).
Here is a link to an article Dr. Paul wrote the day after 9-11.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=630
Ron Paul one week after 9-11:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=218
Ron Paul voted against Patriot Act I and Patriot Act II:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=441
Here, he talks about Neo-Cons taking over the GOP:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=630
Finally, he writes about the hypocrisy in the Middle East:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=501
Fascinating. Well, we will see how he holds up. Since he is in Republican Party and adhere to most of its ideas, I may not vote for him but he can make for an interesting debate. Only things that should not be debated in this day and age is women’s rights to their bodies and LGBTQ’s rights to marry. Those ideas should had been settled but reactionary factions still are dividing the country for their ancient ideas *sigh*.
I think those reactionary factions are HOPING those issues divide the country so that we are distracted from the two most important issues. Our foriegn policy and our fiscal spending, both of which are out of control. I would find it difficult to understand why someone would vote on person A just because person A was for abortion, when person B s positons on the war and fiscal spending dwarf that of anyone else in the field, and person B says lets let the states decide it, because those issues were never intended to be for the constitution to decide.
Hugo Chavez is nothing more than a dictator. He has so far…
1. He has anointed himself president for life by proposing sweeping changes to the country’s constitution.
2. Has taken control of television stations and newspapers restricting the free flow of expressions, ideas and thoughts. You know, “freedom of speech/expression”?
3. Taken control of over U.S. oil companies in Venezuela.
4. Chavez going heavy into making Venezuela a socialist state. In fact, the Venezuelian armed forces already adopted the salute “Fatherland, socialism or death”. Go figure.
5. And with the greatest of irony coming from DICTATOR he sai in a rally speech: “I doubt there is any country on this planet with a democracy more alive than the one we enjoy in Venezuela today.”
Oooh, how nice.
I think all the candidates that are running for president have guts already. They’re busting their chops to get voters and they’re all pretty much saying the same thing you’re saying. They want to “fix” America. But the question is how are they going to do that and is that what we want? Clinton administration is well-revered by many people but it wasn’t perfect. And it wasn’t all rosy either.
Another point here: Hilary Clinton for president—are you wishing for Bill? Or are you really excited to see Hilary lead? Is she a good figure to unify America?
My blog is really about values of the candidate. And what he/she can do for the American people.
You’re right, many people view the Clinton administration with rose-colored glasses, conveniently forgetting the multiple scandals. With Hillary as president, it will be the same all over again. The right-wing nutjobs will be gunning after Hillary and I’m sure that they’ll find ammunition.
I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of the Clintons and want someone else. Besides, I’m not a fan of dynasties and disdain those with a sense of personal entitlement to the presidency.
I wouldn’t say I’m tired of the Clintons. They add spice to this campaign! It’s unprecedented that a former first lady is running for president. That’s something to be commended, not scorned.
I do agree though that she may be too much of a polarizing figure.
I couldn’t agree more. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton sure as hell doesn’t sound like a democracy to me. I like Obama personally, but I think he is too inexperienced. I dislike Rudy the most of all, because he keeps saying “they hate us because we are free”. NO! They hate us because we have been over there and messed with the politics there. We give Israel 3 billion dollars a year in support. We then turn around and give money to Egypt and Saudia Arabia. We overthrew the Shah of Iran, and caused mass chaos in that state. The Iranian threat is being overblown, and the mass media is pumping us full of fear. I am tired of being the world’s policeman! Our founding fathers started this country because they wanted to be free and not have to pay taxes to a government and be burdened to them.
Our dollar keeps getting more and more devalued. Everytime the fed pumps (prints) more money into the economy, our dollar becomes devalued while products become more expensive (look at gas and milk, as two examples). We need to be done with the fed and stop spending money that we don’t have.
I truly like Obama Barack. I think he’ll do well if either he is President or Vice President along with an experienced one to work with him. He has a lot of potential.
Obama indeed has a ton of potential. I do like him personally. My wish is that Obama works in a Paul cabinet and gets sees just how far we’ve strayed as a country in terms of becoming a nanny state, then when Paul is done, Obama would be ready to continue his legacy.
I feel like Obama is just a tad bit too raw to be thrown into that fray, whereas Paul has been there forever, and will not be afraid to veto anything that is not unconstitutional.
I do not think Obama Barack would change his party to work in Ron Paul’s cabinet. His party would need to be neutral if his cabinet is to be filled with people of different parties.
It seems you are on a mission to inform and get Ron Paul elected, given your posts. That’ll be tough as Republican is getting the bad name after what has been done the last 8 years with them running it mostly. The American public is fed up. We can’t really blame them and perhaps, it is a wrong time to try and convince people to vote for Ron Paul. I don’t know.
I realize that my fervor may be a tad excessive, and believe when me I say I am making full effort to tone it down so that I don’t drive people crazy on this board, but I could not go with out responding to your last sentence.
“The American public is fed up. We can’t really blame them and perhaps, it is a wrong time to try and convince people to vote for Ron Paul. I don’t know.”
I couldn’t think of a BETTER time to convince the public to vote for him. American citizens are realizing that our government is borrowing money like crazy so that we can fund an impossible war in Iraq that is causing us the blood of american men and women day by day. The people have been trained into seeing things as democratic or republican, when in reality, we should be looking at the best candidate. Everyone I talk to agrees that Paul has honesty and integrity that they have not seen in the other politicians, yet they say they can’t vote for him because he is a republican from texas like the last president. He is NOTHING like Bush.
If you take no more than 20 to 30 minutes and just google him to death with various quesitons like “why should I vote for Ron Paul” or “how could Ron Paul change this country”, and read all the comments, you would have a truly balanced views of the pros and cons of a Paul presidency.
This link below shows that the country is pissed off and has had ENOUGH of this same old song and dance Republicrat good cop bad cop routine. And it shows that the people in control of the Texas GOP (Bush family) are pulling out all the stops to prevent Paul from winning the nomination.
http://disinter.wordpress.com/.....traw-poll/
Wasn’t Bill Richardson drafted by the then-Kansas City A’s?
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1
Apparently, he wasn’t but he was heavily sought by professional baseball teams.
I support Barack Obama. I don’t think that Richardson is presidential timber, although he does have a good resume. Hillary, well, she’s a divider, and not a uniter. With her high negatives, she’s a gift to the Republican party in 2008. IMHO, we need a uniter and Barack is it.
Bill Richardson as the former Secretary of Energy, had f–ked up big time on the case of nuclear scientist being accused as a spy for China.
Bill Richardson’s weakness of placing hands on females, ex. groping. His so-called weakness is well-known fact.
I personally do not care about someone’s personal flaws like roving eyes and sex outside marriage. The remaining question about the “Middle America” - Will they accept Bill Richardson’s reputable weakness?
I admire Bill Richardson for his policy wonks and personal intelligence. He is for the multi-lingual United States including the American Sign Language from his close friendship with Ron Stern, former Gallaudet University presidential candidate and New Mexico School of the Deaf’s current supt.
Hillary Clinton? Pfft! We do not need another Clinton-Bush drama for more 4 to 8 years. She is an authoritive figure. America do not need that kind of leadership.
Have you read Hillary Clinton’s covert Christianity which she is a member of the official Christian bible-reading group on the Captiol Hill in this month’s Mother Jones magazine?
I don’t trust Hillary Clinton since she is a closeted Republican. Remmy that many people do not give any big deal about GWB due to the comfortable feelings toward GWB’s father, GHWB. The voters realize that GWB is not much resemblance to George Herbert Walker Bush’s ideological spectrum and pragmatism.
I am for Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel as the next President and Vice President of the United States! They are the problem-solvers!
John Edwards would be the good president if Elizabeth Edwards being the main policy advisor. Elizabeth’s wisdom is big plus. Why don’t Elizabeth run herself for the presidency, but her work experience history works against her in big time.
Obama Barack leave me little skittish about his inexperience, but Abraham Lincoln’s limited government experience suited Lincoln’s stormy leadership very well.
Obama surely have a big picture of how we could reach out to our adversary than snubbing them out in cold. Some human egos need to be stroked anyway.
I always enjoy Dennis Ketuch’s witty comments. He definitely have many good ideas, but not likely to be electable.
Joe Biden is also an admirable pol himself, but not really enuff for the “bully puplit” personality to mobilize and motivate the citizens into action.
Gotta go now.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
What does Hillary’s association with the Christian group on the Hill have to do with anything? It should not imply that she is a closeted republican just because of her faith.
What Frum and Liz seem to forget is that the so-called “scandals” that happened during Bill Clinton’s years as Prez were mostly false (except for the Monica thing)…i.e., Whitewater was about nothing, for example.
The Republicans looked HARD for something to hang Clinton with, and that’s something that they should be ashamed about.
Now, look at Bush: he has done plenty that he should be hanged for. Yet…nobody is calling for his blood.
What’s up with that? I think people’s priorities are seriously screwed up.
I know Bill Clinton wasn’t perfect, but he *did* clean up the economy and gave Bush a nice financial surplus, which Bush promptly blew in one year. Clinton also tried to cut down on the deficit, and he succeeded, only to have Bush increase the deficit even further.
And most important of all…Clinton didn’t create paranoia which Bush has done so beautifully. Clinton also supported the Constitution and did not pass policies or laws designed to weaken it, as Bush has done with the First Amendment. Clinton also did his best to preserve the environment…Bush hasn’t, and has actually gone out of his way to ruin the environment. Clinton didn’t piss off the world the way Bush has…in short, Bush has ruined many good things about America and I’m embarrassed to have him as our Prez.
For the record, I’m excited about having Hillary run, because she has experience of being in the White House that all other candidates lack.
Kudos! This can’t be said any better!
It’s why the Republicans went to their lowest by spending too much of taxpayers money and focusing on Clinton’s dalliances with women before narrowing down to Monica. They had nothing else of value but this. I bet many of those Republicans who pointed a finger at Clinton have had their own sexual dalliances. Yes, this appears to be Clinton’s major weakness but hey, it doesn’t affect America or the world! Only his wife can whip his ass for that.
I do not know if anyone notices or it’s just me, more people in Bush’s administration have stepped down than ever in any other previous administrations. It is more than just a coincidence. His term is almost over and these people are as bad as Bush is even if they went along that they don’t agree! I read about how Bush’s administration gave a lot of money and attention to Mississippi, I think, as opposed to Louisana (New Orleans, especially) because Mississippi is mostly a Republican state. New Orleans is not getting better after two years.
I certainly hope Hillary will be back in the White House with Bill Clinton behind the scene and a majority of Democrats in the Congress with Nancy Pelosi leading to undo many severe damages! I also would love for Obama Barack to join Hillary as a team. His wife is awesome and would be a great contributor as well.
To those out there who voted for Bush in 2000, shame on you and those who voted for Bush again in 2004, your mind is twisted! :)
Um, it was a matter of Bill Clinton who lied under oath, several times, (Lewinsky did, too, but once) in regard to the Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton. If any, it was Janet Reno who helped started all this investigation by approving the expansion of the Whitewater investigation with allegations that Clinton perjured under oath.
“The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President “…willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury” and made “…corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence” in the Paula Jones lawsuit..”
It was Bill Clinton’s habit of lying that got him into trouble in the first place. It was a matter of time til that lying caught up to him in the form of perjury.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.ed.....mpeach.htm
You can lie all you want but Clinton knew the seriousness of lying while under oath but did it anyway. Lied several times under oath and in front of a judge! Obstructed justice and witness tampering in the effort to get himself out of a lie.
Clinton is a habitual liar.
And you haven’t even gotten to the Kosovo attrocities he perpetuated!
http://www.public-humanities.o.....arrett.htm
After reading that, Thomas Jefferson’s famous words come to mind: “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none”.
http://www.house.gov/paul/cong.....092501.htm
McConnell, when Clinton lied, nobody died.
I’ve actually seen a bumper sticker say that.
“Nobody died when Clinton lied.”
I should get one myself. :P
This is not true.
“When Clinton lied, no one died”
http://www.counterpunch.org/viet.html
Read this link, and then after you read it, google various themes of it to death and research some more. Then, you’ll have a balanced view of Kosovo that you may not have had before.
McConnell: Bush is a habitual liar as well.
But I consider Bush’s lies to be much, much WORSE than Clinton’s “lies”.
Clinton did what any politican would do when confronted with a potential scandal: lie. If you are caught with a woman, the first instinct of a politican is to lie.
Now, I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do. I’m saying that I can understand why Clinton lied. He was trying to save his own skin. Big deal.
Whereas, based on Bush’s lies, we are stuck with an expensive, pointless war which is a huge waste of our resources (both human and financial) and doesn’t do anything to improve our relations with Middle East and the rest of the world.
This is only ONE lie of Bush’s that I’m highlighting. He made many more serious lies which were far, far more serious than Clinton lying to avoid a sex scandal.
In short, Clinton cummed, Bush killed.
You decide which is more important.