The election in 08 is about the Iraq war. That’s been the biggest issue separating our Democratic leadership in the senate from the Republican leadership. While we’ve been fighting to redeploy our troops to Afghanistan and other more urgent areas, our Republican counterparts have been filibustering to protect their president and his Iraq war policies. Since we’ve held the congressional majority, we’ve been unable to pass meaningful legislation that would do so. Obviously, we need to get out of Iraq.
The election in 08 is about the Patriot Act. Since 9/11, the Patriot Act is the single most damaging piece of legislation to our nation. The Patriot Act is responsible for the telephone wiretaps, and the expanded ability of the Feds to conduct searches. The Patriot Act is responsible for stripping the people of the right of habeas corpus. The Patriot Act is the legislation that gives the government the right to access our library records (if you’re lucky enough to have a library). The Patriot Act is the law that allows increased monitoring of our internet ‘clicks’. And of course, the Patriot act allows for secret searches and searches without a warrant. But most importantly, the Patriot Act EXPANDS PRESIDENTIAL POWER.
If you’ve had the courage to read this thus far, then let me explain why I feel the way I do. There are four democratic presidential nominees who have voted in favor of the Iraq War, as well as the Patriot Act. These are individuals who should be admonished within our party. Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards all voted for the Patriot Act, as well as the authorization for force in Iraq.
The problem I have with these four candidates is that they didn’t have the conviction to turn down these laws. Either they were afraid of losing elections or they believed that the executive branch should have the authorities that these laws allowed for. So what happens when they become president? Does this mean that Hillary will fight to keep the powers that she voted to instill the president with? If you are afraid of 'big brother', would you be equally afraid of 'big sister'? Why should we trust Edwards or Biden or Dodd now? Since they're running for president, don't they have something to gain? Should we allow them to pander to us now when they wouldn't stand up for our beliefs four years ago? We have candidates in our own party running from president who have voted to EXPAND PRESIDENTIAL POWER. Am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest? This is a serious problem. We need a president who has exhibited the foresight to say “NO”. Imagine if we had a candidate in either party who was bold enough to say “NO” to his own party? A candidate who has never voted to EXPAND PRESIDENTIAL POWER…Would you vote for him if he were running for president?
Blindly following party lines is exactly the problem that has kept us from redeploying our troops out of Iraq. So why should we, as progressives, exhibit the same characteristics? Partisanship is the problem. Voting for the candidate based on party affiliation rather than qualifications and voting records is a serious blight on our democratic society.
Ron Paul is the antithesis of our current president; he’s further from the president and the Republican Party than some of our own candidates. Labels should mean nothing in this election. Issues should be paramount. That’s why I’ve been advocating for Ron Paul. He’s a serious long shot to win his party’s nomination, but if the unusual were to happen I would have to seriously consider his candidacy. Were he to run against certain Dem candidates, I wouldn’t think twice. I’m sick and tired of expanding presidential power and the war in Iraq to the point where I could be blinded to all other views. Labels are nothing; issues are everything.
Part Two:
I realize he has his shortfalls. But you must remember a few things:
(1) We're all but assured of having solid majorities in both houses of congress. If the war in Iraq persists through the 2008 election, it's guaranteed. Furthermore, we would have a president in the White House who believes that there are THREE equal branches of government. What you're thinking is that we'll have another Bush Republican in the White House issuing signing statements and claiming unrealistic executive privilege at every turn. If you examine Paul's record, you'll see extreme consistency. If Paul were president, we would be OUT OF IRAQ and there would be NO PATRIOT ACT.
Thus, if we had a stronghold on the congressional branch, we'd have a serious check on the White House.
(2) If Hillary is being truthful in her speeches, as president she'd keep residual forces in Iraq. If her voting record is truthful, she'd claim the same authorities as president that Bushie has. Why wouldn't she?
(3) Ron Paul is a firm believer in state's rights. When you transfer rights from the federal government to the state government you have a much purer form of democracy. Your vote means more at the state level than it does at the federal level, no? If we're not paying federal taxes, does that mean we don't have to pay state taxes? Does that mean we don't have to increase state taxes? Does that mean we won't have more money for state taxes?
(4) Number four ties into number three. Ron Paul is in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a gold standard. What that means is that our dollars would have intrinsic value. Each dollar would be worth a certain amount of gold. As our current system stands, our federal government is essentially a counterfeiter. Whenever it feels like expanding the money supply, it can. All it has to do is keep interest rates low and print more money. What happens when the money supply expands? It causes inflation. Inflation isn't a problem for those who are rich, and when I say rich, I mean top five percent income level. For the rest of us, it causes our money to become less valuable. At the same time, we have no hedge because we have a limited amount of dollars.
Recently, the stock market hit the 14,000 milestone. Have you wondered why that happened despite an ailing housing market, a massive credit bubble, and rising food and energy costs? It's because the FED has the ability to expand the money supply. That money has to go somewhere; thus, it enters the financial markets. Money entering the financial market will create upward pressure on prices (inflation), despite the fact that the fundamentals are poor. It's simple supply and demand. The money has to go somewhere. People will refute this argument by saying that quarterly profits are up, but the quarterly profits are only up among business to business transactions. Look at retail numbers (besides Walmart, where everyone will start to shop when they're poor). They're down. Way down.
So when I hear people talk about Ron Paul's bathtub being smaller than Grover's, I laugh. It's a view that's too simplistic and it's a view that buys into the corporate mindset.
Extremist views? Yes. Isn't that what America needs? Aren't we too complacent with the status quo?
Finally, I'd like to discuss the last reservation I have, which wasn't addressed in my diary, nor in the comments. That is, that his Supreme Court nominees will be conservatives. The views I just laid out before you, were they really conservative views? I realize he has a problem with homosexuals and I realize he might hold some prejudices. But do you really think that a man as honest as him, a man who respects ALL THREE branches of government, do you really think he'll nominate more Bushie candidates? Or do you think he'll nominate individuals who deserve to serve on the highest of courts? If you think otherwise, then please let's see some proof. Prove it with his voting record. Prove it with his public statements. If you can't do so, then you're just as partisan as the people you oppose.I'm always willing to change my mind. All I want is evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment