This is a question I have been asking myself over and over and over. When speaking with James on Sunday one thing we discussed concerning which candidate we backed was their "electability" and viability as a real candidate. While I don't know if Ron Paul really has a legitimate chance, I have decided that at least until the January primaries (and depending on how those go, even up through Super Tuesday in February) I will back Ron Paul as the official candidate of the Smith Home. I reserve the right to change my support if someone like Huckabee comes out as the Republican candidate (and even possibly Thompson)... but while I understand that choosing Guiliani over Hilrod is choosing between the lesser of two evils, I refuse to accept that argument anymore.
This year, if there isn't a candidate I like in the big 2, I will still vote, but I will cast my vote for a third party candidate that I support. As long as everyone buys into this monopolistic thinking that it has to be a democrat or a republican, regardless if you like either of them, then it will be so. I know me stating and voting for a candidate I truly LIKE, not just the lesser of 2 evils will ultimately be fruitless, but until everyone starts voting for "good" candidates nothing will change. And quite simply, I can't ask other people to vote for good candidates if I don't walk the walk myself.
Finally, yet another video. Some interesting things to take out of it: 1) Ron Paul raised as much money in the third quarter as John McCain, just think about that. McCain was considered the front running candidate back in May, Ron Paul raised as much money as him. This not only speaks to how far McCain has fallen, but the fact that Ron Paul really does have some viable support for him. 2) Ron Paul practices what he preaches. He wouldn't allow his children to accept federal student loans, believing that the federal government shouldn't be in the education business (that it should be left up to state and local government, small fact for you, since the inception of the Department of Education children test scores have dropped every year). He also is a practicing doctor but would not accept medicare or medicaid. He practices what he preaches.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Is Ron Paul a legitimate candidate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am happy that you have a candidate that you can believe in. And your argument for voting for a third party in the election (if both the donkeys and the elephant put up loser candidates) is interesting. I guess I have two thoughts.
One, I will risk never changing from a two party system versus risk having Hilrod as my next President. If conservatives tag on with a third party like the Libertarian the only thing it will do is insure that a Democrat, probably Hilly, is elected. It happened in 1992, it would happen in 2008. Which leads me to my next point.
Why do you suppose Ron Paul has got so much positive media attention? Or money? The Democrats are not dumb. They remember '92 and know if they can get enough conservative voters to support Ron Paul, who IS unelectable, then they can coast into the White House easier than Bill Clinton did when Bob Dole ran. I would bet my buck twenty-five that there is Democrat money(or at least crazy liberal) in Paul's coffer. I am not suggesting that Paul is in on it. He seems a man of his word and convictions. This only makes him an easier target.
As much as I would love to see our current party system destroyed, I am not willing to pass up on my opportunity to vote against another Clinton in the White House.
Remember 1992....
While I understand your reservations if RP was running as a third party it would harm the Elephants, as the sole candidate he would KILL Hilrod.
You realize he garners the whole "no war" vote, which is a HUGE section of the donkey voters... combine that with the fact that Hilrod still won't say the war was wrong and that kills her in her own party. Plus RP drags in the whole "legalize drugs" etc contingent of the donkey party.
I think of the current candidates RP is the MOST electable out of the Republican party.
If this was a 3 party race, sure I would buy into the whole tinfoil hat conspiracy that dems were funding his campaign, but as he is just running for the republican nomination right now... not a concern. If (most likely when, but I will hold out hope) he loses the nomination, then I will rethink where I stand voting wise. If it's Guiliani, sorry, no chance I am voting that waste of space into office. If it was Huckabee, I would support him. If it was Thompson or McCain... that would be a tough decision for me.
But ultimately, I don't fear a Hilrod presidency like most of my fellow Republican party members do. Do I want her to be president, heck no. But I think FAR more damage is being done to our nation by locking into this ludicrous two party vote for the lesser of 2 evils system we have. Until we either get a good candidate in our party or we start having multiple parties running (read more than 2) that gives us broader choice, then we are on a path to destruction.
If I am always voting for the lesser of 2 evils then any way slice it, I am always voting for evil. I'd rather have Hilrod as president than to stand idly by as my country gets flushed down the crapper because no one took a stand against crappy choices for leadership.
good thoughts. i like the discussion.
that's all i have to add here.
A couple thoughts-
I understand supporting Ron Paul in the primaries, but I think the general election is a different story. In November of 2008 either a Democrat or Republican will be elected as the next president. Whoever those two candidates are, they will have vastly different positions on socialized medicine, abortion, raising (or lowering) taxes, foreign policy, entitlements etc. From my point of view these issues are too important to spend the only vote I get on a candidate who does not have a remote chance of winning.
Think about this is the past tense - even if you’re not a huge fan of Bush, would you give up the positives he achieved (tax cuts, two conservative Supreme Court Justices) for the chance to say that you voted for an ideologically perfect 3rd party. No, he’s not all that could be hoped for, but, he is much better then Gore or Kerry.
I look at it like this, if the election comes down to Rudy V. Hillary the difference between the two are big enough to make me thankful that I get to influence that outcome.
I think that conservatives sometimes get greedy. We’d like to achieve everything now. Unfortunately, the county isn’t as conservative as I’d think it should be - so, I’ll take what I can in this election and look for even better in the next.
- Blogless Toby
Ron Paul would blow Hillary out of the water in a head-to-head contest.
While Hillary pathetically tries to make anti-war sounds, she keeps voting for the war. Ron Paul OWNS the war issue and he would leave Hillary sounding like a fool every time she opened her mouth. Any other Repub vs Hillary, and the war issue goes to Hillary by default.
Somebody else mentioned the drug legalization issue. Who do you think the 40 million pot smokers in this country are going to vote for if they are offered a candidate who will eliminate all federal drug laws? It won't be Hillary.
And Ron Paul's expertise with money and currency issues would give him a huge advantage in an election year that will see a steadily crumbling dollar.
Plus Ron Paul's army of supporters are the most active, creative, articulate, and energized group I've ever seen. They are the ones fueling this campaign. It truly is a revolution in the way politics works.
Post a Comment