Who is your candidate? // October 18, 2007

I'm a huge Huckabee fan. I think he's a fantastic politician and one of the more outspoken, passionate candidates out there with far less baggage.

Although I applaud some of Paul's Libertarian ideas, he jumps off the deep end on several issues. I think Congress needs to realize that a less than 14% approval rating means that Americans are fed up with them.

I think Huckabee is a real conservative. He does not duck hard questions on Health Care, Iraq, 2nd Ammendment rights, and abortion. He is also in favor of tax cuts to spur economic growth. I think that I will vote for him in the primary. I'd vote for anyone over Clinton.

I'm curious: what is it that you like about Paul?

I got Ron Paul- call me and I'll set you straight on the issues you "missed." I'm sure you know this, but RP was in the military, even if it was the Air Force...

Renee - I like Paul for his *gasp* more libertarian ideas about Personal Resposibility and for the fact that he is a Strict Constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. I would love to have a President that viewed debt the way I do... i.e. its BAD and should be AVOIDED...

...imagine that... a government that said, "huh, maybe we can't afford that right now..."

MDN - Air Force, Smair Force... its a cush life but somebody has to do it...

Cliff Jones (Chaplain Friend of mine) aside...

I can understand that. I'm too bothered by his stance on isolationism to accept him for his other views. But that's just me.

Could you elaborate?

Ron Paul's bad ideas outweigh his good ideas. Disbanding the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Homeland Security? I like a lot of his ideas, but can you picture that man leading this country, especially with globalism on the rise?

Can you imagine a country where the executive branch, legislative branch and the judicial branch actualy paid attention to the Constitution?

Honestly, I think the issues Paul is raising need to be addressed.

JG- Explain the downside of eliminating the IRS, Federal Reserve, & DHS. I'll briefly state the upside as I see it:

IRS- limit the Federal gov. to its Constitutional powers, and the need for it disappears

The Fed- great at artificially restricting economic growth & creating fiat dollars to cover explosive government spending- I'll take my dollars backed by gold

DHS- doesn't really do anything to "secure the homeland," other than create a police state- eliminate this money drain and spend it on border security

As for the CIA, I don't think he actually wants to eliminate it, but reign it in and provide congressional oversight- I could be wrong though. He does view it as an organization that meddles in the affairs of foreign states- a view that is in line with his position of non-intervention.

I agree that his concerns are legit, but I think at this point it's a pipe dream.

First, he's certainly doesn't have the ability to get people on board with his vision. That was made crystal clear watching the debates; he's extremely polemic, and that's the last thing we need in the White House now.

Second, while I agree that the government is too large and needs trimming; how do you kill the Department of Education without "blowback"? How do you win the war of intelligence when you clip the wings of your intelligence agencies? And most importantly: in Paul's decentralized world, how do you deal with all of the interstate miscommunication that contributed to chaos on 9/11? That's one of the key reasons the DHS was formed, to enhance the sharing of information across state borders.

My point is, it's easy to say "throw these government agencies out"; but I think Ron Paul would make the same mistake we made going into Iraq. Yeah, toppling Sadaam is a noble end; but what do we do once he's gone? Taking the government away from several generations of people who have grown up depending on it isn't going to be butterflies and horseys.

I'll concede a few points (with reservations):

RP only has difficulty getting those on board who are believers in the system. And that goes for both parties. Thompson and McCain both think "big government is the solution." That's why those individuals won't jump on his ship.

Killing the Dept. of Ed will have blowback- such as increased local control of education. Federal across the board mandates, like NCLB, are an educational travesty, at best. Additionally, what Constitutional provision gives the Feds anything to do with education?

Sharing information was definately a problem, but really it revolved around two main points- 1) local communication breakdowns (e.g. between NYPD & FDNY) which can be fixed without creating a DHS and 2) info sharing between FBI & CIA, both of which were specifically left out of the DHS. Coordianation of information can be accomplished without creating another layer of government- but then again, for those in power, "big government is the solution."

CIA can contiunue to function in its intelligence role, but RP is concerned with its active interference in other government's affairs, and especially with the secrecey with which it does it. CIA is accountable to no one.

As to your last point, Paul has said that this couldn't happen overnight. It has taken generations to get here, and it will take a while to change. But the fact is that the government cannot afford to continue as it has, and one way or the other it will receed- either planned or unplanned.

And at a practical level, RP isn't going to be president. And even if he was, he couldn't get 1/10 of what he wants. But, he is the only candidate who truly believes in Constitutional government and individual liberty, and for that alone, he has my vote.

You know, one of the things I failed to mention in my previous comment was: I'm glad he's in the debates. I think these issues certainly need to be discussed, and I'm glad he's got such a visible platform upon which to bring them up. My point is, he doesn't have the personality needed to win people over to this just cause. I think he'd do more harm than good because he'd be doing something that eventually needs to happen in the wrong way. One of the things Iraq taught us was that diplomacy is almost (not quite) as important as the right ideas.

I suppose that's why I don't vote for a personality, but ideas, even when the personality behind those ideas isn't so slick.

When you speak of diplomacy, are you referring to foreign affairs, or the failure of the current administration to communicate its position to the people in a way that gets their support?

I've read the comments with interest, and would like to "chime in". I'm not a real fan of Ron Paul, but will probably vote for him, and here's why.

We've created an attitude in this country that needs to be fixed. There are two issues that need to addressed. 1) The nanny state mentality… i.e. - entitlements. Poverty and suffering are unfortunate; but it's not the role of government to deal with that. It's a private sector issue. There is a definable parallel between the government's interference in social issues, and the private sector's negligence. As sad as it is, there will always be the poor, sick, and elderly. While it's wrong for the private sector to ignore the suffering and needy, it's also wrong for the government to confiscate the property and wealth of others and give it to the poor. (If the government were to function as an agency to distribute voluntary gifts to the poor, that might be different.) One only needs to remember the comments of Mrs. Clinton, "I want to take those profits…" to see how far we've fallen. Government cannot (and will never) replace the God given commission of private individuals to care for the needy. God's people are wrong to endorse the government confiscation of assets in an income re-distribution scheme.

The other issue is: 2) Professional representatives. It was the intent of the framers that representatives be from and of the common people. Remember, the constitution assigns authority to the people, not the elected officials. We do not have "leaders" in the United States… we have representatives. This is not a democracy, it's a representative republic.

With all his warts and deficiencies, Ron Paul is the only candidate - with no exception - that desires to return the US back to the ideals of the framers, as defined above. Our abandonment of the practice of original intent is what has led us down this path. And that happened as professional legislators bribed the people with entitlements and promoted class envy. The problems we have in modern government can all be traced back to these two issues. None of the other candidates even talks about dealing with these problems. Mike Huckabee, while a social conservative, is also a big government guy… just look at his record in Arkansas. And, every Republican candidate, except for Ron Paul, is a neo-con… every single one.

One more line of comment… religious conservatives (which I am). There is a lot of talk about voting for someone who might be "less than best" because the alternative is worse. I've even done this... in 2000 and 2004. The thinking goes like this: "Even though there is a candidate who is closer to our position, he can't win, so a vote for him equals a vote for the opposition." So be it. When faced with the moral decisions of wrong, neutral, and right, the Scriptures don't endorse choosing wrong or neutral just because we don't think right can win. We must choose right. And if enough other people don't choose right to make it the popular choice, we live with the consequence, knowing we did the right the right thing. I'll not stand before God and explain that I voted for a pro-abortion, or unashamedly immoral, or cult member, or pro-entitlement/confiscatory candidate, when I had the choice to vote for "right"... just because I thought "right" couldn't win.

God did not promise political victory to His people… our victory is eternal.