Some of you may or may not have seen the Republican Presidential Primary debate. The media gives us shit to work with if we are trying to actually promote good in the world. Obama is pretty much assured a second term with the Republican candidates as they are. There is only one exception, Ron Paul.Now, many people think he doesn't have a chance. This is because they think that everyone has a superficial view of politics and don't think that people can distinguish between shills and the real deal. Which, there is some evidence to support. They want movie stars and simplicity. Bread and circuses. This election will be different. The anti-war people can no longer say that Obama is the anti-war candidate. And, surely, he is not an anti-debt candidate.
The main platform for any political candidate is to protect the U.S. citizens from external harm. This plays a large part of both parties in the U.S. The difference between the 2012 election and the past two elections in 2004 and 2008, is that we have no obvious “mainstream” anti-war candidate. This is HUGE. No one, aside from psychotics, like hearing on the news that anyone around the globe is dying needlessly. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who has any potential to pull the generally exclusive left-wing anti-war vote his way.
If one looks at what is happening in regards to U.S. foreign policy it becomes immediately obvious that Obama had no intention of scaling down the wars upon being inaugurated. He didn’t close Guantanamo, he hasn’t ended drone bombings in foreign countries, habeas corpus is still M.I.A., rendition and torture are still ‘useful’, and the domestic spy state expands unabated. Quite to the contrary, he has done exactly what Romney said he will do and that is, namely, consult his generals. The logical issue here is the generals are the same from administration to administration. If every president listens to them, then the overall foreign policy never changes. This is not to mention the think tanks where the intellectual plans are made of which many generals and defense interests participate. Some have said Paul to be “irresponsible” for wanting to tell his generals what to do. I am left wondering if they have considered the implications of having our military occupying Iraq and Afghanistan while, at the same time, bombing Pakistan and Yemen, unconstitutionally contemplating the deployment of ground troops in Libya, and threatening Lebanon, Iran and Syria. How well do the voters know the generals and some of the ridiculous ideas that they have theorized? (I’m thinking McChrystal’s plan for Task Force Orange to seize Pakistani nuclear arms in much the same manner as the so called “Osama take down” [EDIT: 8/16/11 The source site for that is gone now...here is the Google cache of the page.). How well can we identify the interests of defense contractors and private 'security' forces? And just what does Patraeus watch, ‘Jersey Shore’ or ‘16 and Pregnant’?Any other Republican candidate can say all they want about ending the wars now that it is en vogue, but they will not stand a chance of chiming the left-wing voters to jump ship from Obama. Think about this. The general liberal voter will not vote for Bachmann, Cain, or any of the other xenophobic mouthpieces based on their stances of what is called ‘social conservatism’ or stated bluntly moral judgementalism. Liberals are for gay rights, open immigration, and abortion, they are against domestic spying and want the military/industrial/security complex dismantled and Ron Paul accepts that people have various interests and priorities. Live and let live.
The main issue for the tea party is the debt. It is obvious that Paul is the only economically literate candidate. He consistently gives real examples that aren’t politically expedient. He knows the distinctions between various schools of economics, of which many are unaware because economics is sold as a “science” in school and therefore is assumed to give definitive conclusions to situations. It cannot, as it is only a series of theories attempting to explain the distribution of goods under conditions of scarcity. The Austrian school, of which Paul subscribes, attempts to observe what markets do in unhampered conditions because ultimately the market is more powerful than regulations. This is what allows those who understand it (Austrian economics) to 'predict' what could happen given certain circumstances.
The “tea party” only has to decide between Paul and Bachmann. Romney, Cain, Pawlenty, and the other one don’t stand with the tea party as much as they stand for the traditional Bush-era GOP. Bachmann’s main talking point was her many, many children. She apparently wants to be the mother of all of America. A noble pursuit, but I have a mom, the country has Founding Fathers, and humanity has Mother Earth. So we’re pretty much covered in that regard. I thought we needed a leader anyway. Bachmann would be an okay Press Secretary for President Paul, however. Maybe that is what Ron should have said when asked at the debate.
Paul has several decades of speeches recorded on the floor on the Congressional Hall stating his positions on virtually every issue that is brought forth. He is consistent, principled, logical, sane, moral, and above all honest about political situations. While Obama and Bush have done their part to bring the U.S. to the brink of both bankruptcy and a possible world war. The liberals are in dismay and are effectively vulnerable to anti-war sentiment, while the tea party has split the republican vote. If the GOP puts up any candidate other than Paul, they hand the election to Obama. If they run Paul, they can cut Obama’s anti-war voter base down significantly. Paul stands alone saying, “End the Empire.” Let’s actually do the world a favor and do it on our terms before the rest of the world does on theirs. Peace.
