Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>NSR,</p>

<p><em>I've never been able to shake the Obama empty suit thing. It's the basic delima, a good looking guy running for office saying all the right things. My gut tells that's just the problem, he's saying them because that's what he's supposed to say. He's different, he's change, my gut says he's the same old Politician story.</em></p>

<p>What do you want in a candidate then? A sloppily dressed individual who is simply pessmistic about everything? I understand the argument that Obama is too inexperience or is too naive. But after 20 years of division and partisan bickering, I want something different. I want to believe in the idea that people in the U.S. can get together in spite of their differences and make the country a better place. I have my sets of beliefs on how the country should be runned but that does not mean that I get to ignore what my critics are saying or that they are any less correct in their views. Working together for me is a lot better than yelling about how the other side is the cause for all the problems. </p>
 
I think if you could put Ron Paul's ideas into Mitt Romney's body, the Republicans would have a winning candidate. Romney has the look, persona, and the public speaking ability. Paul is the most spot on with his viewpoints, but cannot deliver an uplifiting speech to save save his life.
 
<p>IC,</p>

<p>I hope for your sake that Obama doesn't win the primaries, because when the general election comes around all you are going to hear is "how the other side is the cause for all the problems". As it stands now, his website is filled with references to Bush/Cheney to provide contrast to his own plans. That sounds like blaming "the other side" to me.</p>
 
I am having a hard time getting past Obama's inexperience. After Bush, I desperately want someone in the Oval Office with basic decision making skills. Obama might have them, but he is not proven, and I am, to date, unwilling to take that risk on him. The most difficult choice for me in the general election would be Obama vs. McCain. I don't know if I can get myself to vote Republican for this cycle after Bush, but he would have the qualifications to lead that I am unsure if Obama has. If Clinton is running against McCain, I will vote for Hillary.
 
<p>Interesting facts:</p>

<p>McCain missed 56.5% of his 110th Congressional votes - <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/states/az/">Arizona members of the 110th Congress | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com</a></p>

<p>Clinton missed 24% - <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/states/ny/">New York members of the 110th Congress | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com</a></p>

<p>Obama missed 37.8% - <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/states/il/">Illinois members of the 110th Congress | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com</a></p>

<p>What do you think of these pesky voting records ? Do they influence you in any way ? </p>
 
Sometimes they will miss votes where they know a certain measure will either carry or fail with or without their vote. Plus, there are some issues you don't want your vote recorded for posterity because it can come back to bite you.
 
I'm disappointed that Paul or Romney did not win as I view our #1 problem being the bloated Federal spending binge. I'm not that convinced the remaining candidates will do what it takes to cut the Federal government down to size.
 
<em>"I'm not that convinced the remaining candidates will do what it takes to cut the Federal government down to size."</em>





Now that the Republicans have given up on small government, I don't think anyone will ever cut it back again.
 
<p>Ic, that is the problem. He says he'll bring them together, but my gut tells me it's empty.</p>

<p>I don't see him as a uniter. He talks a good game, but I don't believe him because while he gives a 60s big Government we're going to change, he proceeds to bash, blame and scapegoat and really, presents the same 60s and on Democratic platform. That isn't one of unity, IMHO.</p>

<p>He stands proud on the anti-war position. Frankly, when the initial decision was made, it was the right decision, based on the wrong information.</p>

<p>He would have made the wrong decision on the wrong information which in hind sight appears to be the right decision but if done in the time, would still have been wrong.</p>

<p> </p>
 
I hope Obama wins, and maybe this will show that things like affirmative action are useless, racist and counterproductive. No longer can an african american say..."the white man is always just trying to keep the black man down." At that point I can say "really, well a man of African descent is freakin president of the United States! And he got there on his own accord.
 
Uh, yes it does. Obama got to where he is through his own hardwork, not because of what he looks like. Government programs designed to benefit people based on their skin color are inherently racist. Period.





It bothers me that when I fill out a 1003 loan application the borrower has to fill in the ethnicity box. Why the hell does it matter? It shouldn't.
 
<p>I think Bush has proven that qualifications don't always provide an example of future performance. Even Bill Clinton's first year in office was a comedy of errors. Both were state governors which would indicate some experience in transition, cabinet selection, and the legislative process. If anything, that leads me to believe that Clinton has the most relevant experience.</p>
 
Hey maestro, couldn't you also argue that Obama got where he is BECAUSE of affirmative action? I think that because of the inherent racial bias in this country a measure like Affirmative Action is necessary. Maybe implemented a bit more reasonably.
 
<p>I understand the cynicism and the doubts about Obama's inexperience. However, Obama's talk (reallity or not) at least points the country in a different direction. I know what I will get if Hillary or McCain is the president, the same old Washington bickering and complaining. Nothing is getting done. Democrats keep blaming Bush but they have done virtually nothing since being elected into the majority. It is the same old game. Do just enough to keep in power and to be able to blame the other side if nothing happens. I am sick of it. </p>

<p>NSR. . . you are afraid that Obama is a fraud and is no different than the other politicians. But you know that Hillary and McCain are dividers for sure. . .100 percent. The possibility that Obama can be different and an uniter as he states is something that I willing to at least hope for. Yes he made be a fraud or ineffective, but at least we gave something different a shot. It may be a swing and a miss but it is better than not swinging at all. </p>

<p>Your argument against Obama would have applied against JFK as well. He was a good speaker with little political experience. Now, JFK was not a great president by any means (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam) but he gave people great hope. 40 years after his death, people still see JFK as a bringer of hope. </p>

<p>As for the anti-war issue, look at what Obama actually said (October 26, 2002):</p>

<p>"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.</p>

<p>I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne....That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.</p>

<p>Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.</p>

<p>He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.</p>

<p>But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.</p>

<p>I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.</p>

<p>I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."</p>

<p>I understand the justification for going into war but the problem is that Bush never took the time to reallty analyze the war. He made rash decision based upon bad information that was in part due to the actions of his own people. Bush ignore contrary evidence and the fact that military was military was already engaged in Afganistan. Finally, he failed to consider the aftermath of his actions and failed to develop a plan to "keep the peace" in Iraq. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
>But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States





Tell that to the pilots of the US warplanes that were enforcing the no-fly zones between 1991 and 2003. I follow things like this closely, but I can't even tell you how many thousands of times our pilots were fired upon by the Iraqis.





>or to his neighbors





Tell that to the Israelis who lost family members in suicide bombing attacks that Saddam openly subsidized.





>and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until





Tell that to the UN representatives of countries that were trying to lift sanctions against Iraq because of secret agreements made through graft in the "Oil for food" program.
 
<p>Sorry for the two post format but I wanted to break up the discussion.</p>

<p>Nude. . .If you read Obama's book, he makes it clear that he does have a "democratic" view of how things are run but believes that you need work with others to get there, not just to run over people. Look at his foreign policy strategy...he is at least open to talking to the rest of the world rather than just start launching missiles. Right now, most of the world thinks that the U.S. is nothing more than a big bully and willing to get into a fight at the drop of a hat. That attitude is needs to be changed before the issues of terrorism can be resolved. This is one of the biggest reasons why I am a "liberal". To me, most "conservatives" are reactionary in nature. They treat the symptoms of a problem (more jails, death penalty, bigger military, school testing, more police, closing the border) rather then identify and treating the causes of that problem (single parent homes, poverty, run down/mismanaged schools, afterschool programs, universal health care). </p>

<p>IR. . .I fully understand your concern about Obama's inexperience but political experience does not equate leadership. Two of our greatest president, Washington (no political experience, a marginal military general, but a great motivator of men) and Lincoln (four terms as a state legislator and 2 years as a U.S. Representative) had about as much political experience as Obama (7 years in state legislature, 3 years in the Senate). Now, I am not saying that Obama will become a Washington or Lincoln but rather that political experience does not a president make. </p>

<p>The hope that I get from Obama as to the future of the country is so refreshing after the bickering I has seen in Washington for the past 20 years. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsrgYvx7KJE">www.youtube.com/watch</a></p>
 
<p>Winex,</p>

<p>It is hard for me to see how Iraq firing on US and UK planes flying <strong>over IRAQ</strong> constitutes an imminent and direct threat to the United States. The no fly zone may have been justified but US warplanes being fired upon by Iraq does not consitute a general threat to the United States itself. </p>

<p>Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran all openly supported (currently or in the past) suicide bombers. Should we invade those countries as well? Oh yeah, Israel launches missile attackes against the Palestinians on a frequent basis and invaded Lebanon last year, should we not take over that country for being a threat to its neighbors? Also, why are we not in Sudan, Kenya, or Chad helping to stablize that region?</p>

<p>Containment does not equate complete dominance. Libya was largely contained by the international community through the use of economic sanctions and condemnation. North Korea, Iran, and Cuba remain largely contained as a result of similar actions. What made Iraq more dangerous than Iran or North Korea?</p>
 
I can, maybe, see where an argument could be made to stay in Iraq and stabilize that country to a reasonable level before we pull out. However, with hindsight, it's mind boggling to me that people are still arguing that going into Iraq in the first place was the right thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top