Obama would raise taxes on the rich and implement universal health care. He will not reduce the size of the military, just recall some troops and shift others to Afghanistan. Ron Paul, if he could, would reduce taxes, drastically reduce the size of government, and reduce the scope of our military spending. Interestingly, despite this last point, the biggest contributors to his campaign were from the military and he was more popular than McCain, Romney or Huckabee among members of the armed forces.
Obama is a mild liberal, now pandering ever more toward the "center" of the political spectrum as perceived by the media.
Arguably, a deficit-spending platform is necessary--even if it's a lie--because people don't like to hear about service cuts and the MSM rarely points out how crazy a candidate's plan is. Thus, if one candidate says they will cut taxes without cutting services even though deficit spending is already rampant, the other has little choice but to make a similar claim because the MSM won't talk about the absurdity of it all.
For them, it seems, the "center" means accepting the military-industrial complex with its extremely high military spending, a casual willingness to use military force, proposing a deficit-funded budget, avoiding discussion of abortion so as to avoid appearing on one side or the other, an unwavering support for Israel, emphasizing one's Christianity, and so forth. He originally proclaimed that he would run a positive campaign focused on the issues, but with Republicans slinging mud and lies his way, it's no surprise he fights back with negative ads of his own.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, who makes up for this somewhat unpopular ideology with sheer integrity, straight talk, and an unwavering commitment to the rules and ideals of the constitution. Almost everything he says is gold because it rings true. He says the kind of things I think, but which the media and ordinary politicians ignore. He also defends the right to bear arms, but I can live with that as long as he promotes the rest of the constitution with at least as much fervency.
Both of them want political debates to focus on the issues, and neither want the media to be distracted by stupid sideshows. Both of them value ethics and a respect for the constitution. Both of them are more tech-savvy than Bush or McCain. Both of them recognize and dislike the corruption in Washington, and want change, though the scale of change Ron Paul would bring is surely greater. Both of them have a talent for speaking--though Obama appeals more to the heart and Ron Paul more to the mind.
Ahh, how nice it would be if I could take the best of each. Paul's straight talk with Obama's electability. Paul's contempt for big government plus Obama's belief that everyone should have access to health care and education. Paul's anti-abortion and anti-war leanings with Obama's anti-gun leanings. Paul's uncompromising support of the constitution, combined--in some impossible way--with Obama's ability to compromise in order to get things done.
I've got it. Let's have Obama for four to eight years and get our universal health care while ending the Iraq war, chipping away slowly at Washington corruption, and altering the tone of politics. Then let's vote Ron Paul, to take a sledgehammer to corruption, shrink government, close some of our 761 military bases, return to fiscal responsibility, end the drug war, and abolish all unconstitutional practices. Of course, for Paul to achieve all this is practically unbelievable today--but after drinking Obama's kool-aid of hope long enough, maybe the nation will be ready.
Mind you, I haven't heard either of them talk about two issues dear to my heart, intellectual property reform and electoral reform. It'll be interesting to see whether Ron Paul could have even the slightest chance of winning without the latter.
For a quick primer on Ron Paul, click here. Then check out his Campaign for Liberty.
2 comments:
Interesting take - I hadn't considered being a centrist as a bad thing, but in the case of Obama I guess it is kind of contradicting his core ideals to appear more centrist. RP on the other hand, is a pretty open book.
An Obama/Paul ticket would be a pretty awesome prospect, but I doubt they'd get anything done - when you consider even something as simple as education, their positions are so far apart it would be an instant stalemate. Still, if they sat down and met somewhere in the middle? Now THAT could be interesting. (A semi-public, semi-private education system?)
Thanks for the link by the way. I like your blog, I'll stop by here more often. :)
I did lots of research on Obama and found way too many contradictions in his statements and beliefs over time. He contradicted almost every statement he ever made with another contradictory statement. Sometimes on the same day (I've seen Youtube videos of him on the same day in the same clothes stating the exact opposite stance!).
I had a list made at one point and it was absolutely ridiculous the number of IMPORTANT issues he wavered on (though that is typical of any politician) which I would say was almost EVERY issue. Some people thought his Sh!t didn't stink, and it still wreaked like a politician if you did the research and really dug down to what he was about.
Haha, I really enjoyed his tale about his "uncle" that liberated Auschwitz which he told to some Jewish survivors... I thought it was funny considering the US didn't liberate it, Russia did, and it remained in in Russian controlled territory... Plus the little fact that he didn't have an uncle in the US Army at that time was kind of amusing.
He's a smart cookie. He promised what people wanted to hear. Some of his clever speeches were so devoid of any hard stances that it left it up to the audience to decide what that positive change meant to themselves... to paint their own picture of what he would do. As a result, Obama was all things to all people... His speeches evoked so much emotion for a utopia (which is different for everyone) and people believed he would make their own individual utopia come true. He had wavered on enough issues and the media did a poor job in covering that aspect of his flip-flopping. I don't think the media can say anything bad about him since he was their guy...
Ron Paul was my man.
I wasn't a fan of McCain either... but I intuitively knew that most of the masses would vote for Obama and that is why I did the research on him. I'm not slandering the guy, I could show facts for all the above and more...
That said, now he's in so let's hope for the best. He has the opportunity to do great things - but I highly doubt he will, though I'm sure he'll always be regarded as a popular President due to his speeches for evoking such emotion.
Post a Comment