(Guest Writer: gk)
Although I agree with Ron Paul on some things (like being a strict constitutionalist) - there are other areas upon which I vehemently disagree - his Isolationalist ideas are the main ones. I simply think it is impractical to withdraw to a "fortress America" and abrogate all our standing trade agreements and national mutual defense agreements, and not expect that our national security or standard of living will not be severely jeopardized. If we were to unilaterally withdraw our military from around the word - those areas we withdraw from, would soon be over-run by whichever crazie holds forth in that part of the world - i.e. Middle-East - Iran, Middle Europe - Russia, Far East - China or N.Korea and as soon as these countries were under their control, they would soon all gang up on the U.S. and either individually, or collectively, attack us. So it's fight them over there or over here - take your choice. We tried isolationist policies after WWI and didn't work then either. Germany overran Europe and Japan attacked first China and then all the Pacific Islands and then finally Pearl Harbor, when we finally got in it. We are still thinking about both Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Some people have forgot.
We also produce much more of everything then we can consume - especially in food products, wheat, etc, and we depend on our world-wide trade to give our national producer's their profit - in turn - buying other nations products that we don't produce. Without this global economy, which I understand Paul wants to withdraw from, the world would go into a world-wide depression - bottom line, nations would starve - and we too, would be very hard put to maintain our economy. With hostile nations in charge of most of, if not all the world's oil - our entire U.S. economy/society would grind to a huge halt without oil. I could go on and on- but Paul's ideas are just not practical or reality. He has a 1776 Constitutionalist mentality in a very complex world-wide/mutually dependent 2008 world - and his simplistic ideas simply won't work. So, it serves no purpose to take his ideas one-by-one and consider/discuss them.
I also disagree with McCain on some things, but his main claim to fame is backing G.W. on the War on Terror and specifically Iraq and Afghanistan - which is my number one priority campaign issue. So if it comes down to McCain and whoever the Dem's candidate is, they have already said (like Ron Paul) that they would "cut and run" in Iraq - and McCain has said, he would stay there for 100 years if necessary to insure our nation's safety, so that's a no brainer who I would vote for. If our nation doesn't have security, all the rest of it is moot.
I don't agree with your assessment that McCain can't win.
Against Hillary, I think McCain gets the nod - depending on their running mates.
Against Obama - I'm not as sure McCain can win - that will be a question of how many would vote for a black man, with some great amount of confusion about his true loyalties - Muslim background/seems a bit reluctant to salute the flag, etc. And of course, the other great unknown about Obama is that so far has said "He's for change" "Trust me" and not much more. When he gets down to his stand on specific issues - if he ever does, maybe he won't fare so well. And then the race will tighten up a lot more. Not much is unknown about McCain, but there is not much that is known about Obama, and as he becomes better known, I think he will lose a lot of his appeal. He is a glib speaker, has a lot of charisma and sex appeal - as compared to McCain, but I think when it comes down to pulling the lever, the Soccer Moms of this world will vote for their family's security and go with a proven warrior and that is McCain . Not "cut & run" Obama. (or Billary or Paul)
It's beginning to look more and more like a McCain/Obama race - so it will remain to be seen who is electable and who isn't.
Not withstanding the Ron Paul email that is circulating saying - ignore the MSM and the way to get Ron Paul nominated as the Republican Nominee, is to gain enough delegates to the Nat'l Convention is to get delegates at the various state's conventions, and that way, win at the Nat'l Convention. I am very skeptical that that is doable. McCain already has 703 delegates, by winning previous Winner-take-all states or through caucus states to now and winning caucus/popular delegates that are committed delegates at the Nat'l level. Ron Paul has 14 to date. Bit of a disparity there! Little humor!
There are 2503 delegates to the Republican Nat'l Convention. 1191 are need to secure the nomination. So far, according to today's Herald - 1200 are already assigned/committed. When the other candidates concede, traditionally and historically, they release/assign their won delegates to the front runner as a sign of unity. This means Romney (293) & Huckabee (190) and between the two of them, they have enough votes they could throw to the nomination to McCain today, assuming not another delegate is assigned from today. Traditionally, these delegates follow their candidate's wishes but occasionally a few rebels will still vote another way. It's not common but it has happened to a few votes. So the nomination is already over assuming tradition is followed - and Romney and Huckabee either now or eventually throw their votes to McCain (vs Paul) and I fully expect that in the interest s of party unity and giving McCain a head start on campaigning against whomever the eventual Democrat candidate will be.
Almost half of the available Republican Delegates votes are already decided to now in primary elections. Of the remaining states primary elections, in order for Ron Paul to catch up with McCain/Huckabee, he would have to win 1176 out of the remaining 1303 uncommitted states delegate votes. Good luck to Paul in winning 91% of all the remaining state's primary popular or caucus vote! Not going to happen! Especially since to date, he has typically garnered around 3-5% of the primary votes. His delegate percentage at present is around 1.1%. So if he can turn this around and win 90 some % more of the popular vote then he has to now, he can just about tie the front runners in the remaining states.
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's grass roots workers, but reality is reality. The political system as presently structured is stacked against fringe candidates such as Ron Paul/Perot's/Ralph Nader's/etc.
Running for president costs a lot of money. Romney spent 35M of his own trying to get nominated - and has 293 delegates. He has conceded today. He will probably throw his delegates to McCain, but we'll see. Ron Paul hasn't spent that kind of money - hasn't got that kind of money, won't get that kind of money - and now that it is only McCain and Huckabee, besides him, I don't think Paul is going to create any ground swell with about 52% of the remaining delegate vote up for grabs and win a vast majority of those. He would have to win an overwhelming majority of these remaining delegates to pull it off. I just don't see it in the cards.
Much as I hate to say it, I think the rest of the remaining state's presidential primaries and caucus's are just going through the motions - including our Washington State primary. I think that McCain is pretty much a lock. Today's Herald below the fold front page headline thinks so too.
But - believe what you will, I haven't been right yet in any of my predictions, except about a year ago, I predicted that Billary won't even win the nomination, much less the presidency. That prediction is still alive. All my other predictions have gone down in flames - i.e. I picked George Allen to be the Republican nominee and he didn't even get out of the gate at the beginning of the race - Giuliani did, as did Duncan Hunter, Tancredo, Fred Thompson, Romney, Alan Keyes, and they are all dead in the water - so, this has been a brutal race to predict! So, maybe a huge miracle will occur and Ron Paul will finally win? We'll see. -gk
6 comments:
I think you may be mixed up about a few things...
Being non-interventionist has nothing at all to do with trade. It has to do with not mucking around in the affairs of other nations. This can be a good thing for several reasons... for one, you never know the outcome meddling in another country will produce. Look at Iran. We (the U.S.) basically created Iran as it is today, via our ridiculous and heavy handed forien policy. For two... if you don't go around stomping on people, you give them less reason to come and attack you. Think about it...
Every time the U.S. bombs and kills someone, that person has friends and familly who will almost certainly harbor a seething hatred for America (with good reason). THIS is the pool from which 'terrorists' are drawn. Not the crazies, those guys are giving the orders and doing the training. Without the U.S. forien policy creating a never ending line of people willing to die to kill Americans, the 'crazies' would be little more than ranting street prophets being ignored by the masses around them (like homeless lunatics). Also, it should be noted that even Paul would have to enforce mutual defense treaties, because they are in essense laws. The key word there is defense as opposed to offense, which is offensive.
Back to trade.. Paul would actually increase the number of countries we trade with, and that is a good thing. Besides giving us robust economy, trade has other benefits. The economy in the U.S. is the largest in the world, it drives many other economies and touches nearly all of the world's economies. This is Americas true strength. Other nations depend on us, therefore it would be in their interest and benefit to make us happy... that gets forgotten when we're in their land killing their people and causing hardship. Removing bad foriegn policy would lead to wielding a much greater weapon than our military... our wealth.
Oh yeah... The U.S. gets the bulk of its oil from Canada and Mexico. By increasing the supply from both and adding in domestic sources, and using less because we wouldnt be moving our military around so much or supplying them in 130 other countries, we could be free of the little we actually use of mid-east oil completely quite easily.
Honestly, I quit reading after you said he was isolationist. I suggest looking into his policies a little more, because he is not isolationist. He just isn't in favor of intervening in the affairs of other countries, but is open to free trade. Thus, he is hardly isolationist.
And as far as national defense, when the speed boats of Iran are pulling that crap off the coast of Florida, give me a call. I'm sick of having to pay money to have bases around the world to defend the countries we pay to do so. It makes no sense and is a drain on taxpayers who are going through their own problems, especially in this economy.
Ron Paul wants what is best for the country, not what is best for the empire.
Good luck, and I hope you look at his positions more. He is being honest and truthful even if he will be attacked for it. Says alot about the man, shows he is strong. We need a president who is strong enough to defend the nation while upholding the constitution and GWB and the rest of the candidates fail hard at that. Their first reaction is to turn into dictators, and that is a weak candidate IMO. Giving up the things that made this country great is not an option, but it appears to be the only option we are given.
If they hate us for our freedom, then why are we giving them away? If they hate us for our freedom, then who is "they"? Because the only people who have taken any of my freedoms away have been those pushing the status quo.
Thank you both so much for your comments.
If you scroll down the right hand side of my page, you will find a link to the constitution society.
There are some exellent documents which suggest that some entanglements may be unavoidable.
See Jefferson and the Barbary coast...
The United States began about one thing and that is FREEDOM!!
We are the bright light of FREEDOM in the World, without our bright light the world will be darken by tyranny!
The Pauliacts pretty much are saying to the rest of the world, we got our freedom so screw you!
AFY!
AFY,
We the "Pauliacs" completely agree with you that America is about one thing and that is FREEDOM. Haven't you noticed how we are much less free these days? We want to make sure our FREEDOM shines and is a light to the whole world like you are suggesting. If we want to be so we need to NOT be for Torture, limitless search and seizure, Wiretapping without authorization, Habeus Corpus, etc, etc.
Those tyrannical governments point to our darkness all the time to prove that we are just like them.
Here's a good link for you to check out:
Top Contributions
Top 3 contributors for Ron Paul in 4th Quarter: US Army, Navy, Air Force. Not only were they the top three contributors, but their contributions to Ron Paul was more than the military contributions to John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama COMBINED.
I say, SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
Post a Comment