 "Photo:")
Allow me to tell you about a worthwhile man for the Presidency of the United States. He's an experienced Congressman from Texas, an important member of a major Congressional committee, and a gynecologist by trade. He has voted consistently against every single war supporting initiative, all the way back to Bill Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act" that Bush has used to justify invading Iraq. He was a fierce opponent of the Bush Administration, even in the days after September 11th when so many other politicians kowtowed before the Almighty Executive. He has introduced legislation that calls for the decriminalization of non-drug hemp farming and other acts that cut funding for a plethora of government programs. He voted against all forms of the PATRIOT Act and has gone against his party so often that they can never rely on him for a vote unless the legislation in question is strictly Constitutional and ethical (which is rare, considering the party). This man has even stood his ground against the wave of "Support Our Troops!" propaganda, voting against every war bill even while being attacked for not "providing armor" to G.I.'s in Iraq and other such nonsense, becoming one of only four members in Congress to have voted against every war funding bill since the invasion of Iraq.
Who is this man? Is it Barak Obama, who has no experience as a statesman and wouldn't know Constitutional legislation if it slapped him? Is it Hillary Clinton, who suffers similar inabilities at obeying Federal Law and voted to invade Iraq? Perhaps it's Biden, Dodd, or one of the other no-name candidates that have filed to run as a Democrat in 2008 and have also proved themselves to be sheep in the face of a warmongering President? One way or another, such an anti-war candidate must surely be a Democrat, right?
Wrong.
The only person that is considering running in 2008 that has consistently been against the war and all unConstitutional Federal spending or actions is Representative Ron Paul, from Texas. Dr. Paul is, unfortunately for some, a Republican.
Simply because he has an (R) next to his name, some of you will not be voting for him. It's a shame, really. There isn't much one can write to beat away the mindlessness that affects those caught up in partisan politics. People who would write articles going on about the supposed victory that this country had in electing a majority Democrat Congress, and people who would revel in such an article, are not interested in solutions. These people do not care about principles in politics or ethics in law. Instead, just as in past elections where vast seas of mindless people voted for a party instead of a candidate, politics has boiled down to "I hope my side wins", with absolutely no regard to what their side stands for.
Partisan politics does not consist of Right vs. Wrong, Principled vs. Unprincipled, Ethical vs. Unethical, Constitutional vs. unConstitutional, or Wise vs. Unwise. Partisanship is simply Red vs. Blue, or with the state of politics consisting of Big Government Social Conservatives and Big Government Social Liberals, it's more like Red vs. a slightly different shade of Red. Worse, maybe it's more like Alien vs. Predator: Whoever wins, we lose.
The Democrat majority has done nothing to get us out of Iraq. No timetable has been set up and nothing has been done to curtail the out-of-control executive branch. The Democrats have fallen on their faces in front of political power instead of standing up for what is right (which is something they never actually promised to do, anyway). Pelosi's first 100 hours were a terrible joke, with absolutely no solid, Constitutional legislation coming out that would improve the condition of this nation. They have wasted their time and given up their check on power to build a bigger, stronger Federal government instead of cutting expenditures and reeling in the President. Truly, they are just another shade of Red.
Getting back to Dr. Paul's possible candidacy, I encourage each of you to do some research on him. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" House and Senate members on Capitol Hill. Do a search on YouTube.com for Ron Paul, and see if he isn't the most straightforward politician you've ever heard. Better yet, if you value action over rhetoric, look up his voting record and see his absolute dedication to principles in government. This man does not fall on his knees before special interest groups, corporate lobbyists, or partisan politics. Unlike any Democrat with a Presidential bid, Paul has nothing to apologize for - he did not vote, as Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry of the previous election had, to enter into Iraq or fund the occupation since.
Dr. Paul is running on the Republican ticket, but this man is not a Republican in the modern sense. Instead, he is a principled leader and fiscally responsible statesman. Unlike any other person that is considering a bid, he has a record of obeying the Constitution, being a true reformer, cutting Federal spending to support tax cuts for everyone (and not providing corporate welfare), being against the war in every single vote, and holding individual freedom as the only true goal for proper governance. If you want someone who has even just one of those qualities, Dr. Paul is simply the only option for 2008.
For the sake of this country, I beg you: Drop your partisanship mindset. Vote for principles, not party. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.
Be the first to comment on this article!