Ron Paul continues to impress me and certainly has my vote for the 2008 election. The only way things will change is if we start getting behind the best person for the job, not the guy who has the "best chance" for winning. There is no way I can consciously vote for any of the "front runners" of any party as a Christian. I do like all the underdog Rep's, but Paul stands out as the man with a plan.Video clips of the Ron Paul highlights at yesterday's Republican debate are here.
(The Picture is Ron Paul trying to revive the constitution which has flat lined)
8 comments:
Interesting you mentioned him and put a link to this particular Video. This is exactly the clip I caught while flipping channels.
I really enjoyed his definition of marriage. I like the way he said - we don't need to redefine it. We know what it means. A union between a man and a woman. Simple.
I'm still a Mitt Romney fan, but I've seen a lot of ads for Ron Paul.
That was pretty impressive, thanks for sharing that. I really didn't know anything about him, but I like what he had to say.
I'm a bit surprised by this choice, Bob, but I don't really know you, so I'm only working assumptions from your other posts. Can you elaborate more specifically what you like about Paul? Do you find yourself supportive more of a libertarian platform (which is really what Ron Paul is)? Are you 100% against the war?
Personally, I'm very torn about who to vote for. I'm registered Republican, but I'd rather be independent. The only problem with that is that Pennsylvania doesn't allow independents to vote in the primaries.
Hey Tim, you asked some fair questions:
"Can you elaborate more specifically what you like about Paul?"
Well, what I find most winsome in Ron Paul is the fact that he really believes in small limited government. None of the other republicans are talking like this, which is why Paul seems out of step with his own party. I like Paul's tax plan which would cause illegal immigrants to pay taxes as well as drug dealers because they would be taxed through their purchases rather than through the IRS (Which Paul wants to illiminate altogether). I also like his stance that you can't legislate morality. There are many other things to say here but those are some of the issues in my mind that I like.
"Do you find yourself supportive more of a libertarian platform (which is really what Ron Paul is)?"
I suppose so, but I think the Libertarian platform is the true classical conservativism that the Republican party has abandoned. Here's the thing, most of the big mouth Christian leaders don't like Paul because he is for legalizing drugs, prostitution etc. I think this is because they have bought so heavily into the fallacy that illegal=immoral and legal=morally condoning. That's not the case at all. I don't want people wasting their lives on heroine, but I don't think it is governments job to step in and throw them in jail for that self destructive practice...that's what families and friends are for. Granted, we could have programs to help people get off drugs but it's not governments job to enforce morality and personal responsibility on people.
Paul was on the "Values Voter Debate" (A Christian led debate with the Republican candidtates) a month ago and according to them he scored poorly. One of the Q's asked was along the lines of "If a publisher won't publish Christian tracts/literature will you vote for legislation that stops business owners from discrimination against Christians?" Everybody but Paul votes "Yes" on this. The thing is you gotta think this stuff through, when you start doing that stuff you open the doors for say gays to do the opposite to Christian publishers. Paul explained this to seemingly deaf ears.
"Are you 100% against the war?"
Well, I have kinda switched on this one due to Paul. (He is the only candidate Dem or Rep who voted against the war) His argument against the war was based on the premise that Saddam brok the UN sanctions that ended the Gulf War therefore we should go enforce those sanctions. I agreed with that, and that has been my argument for Iraq from day one. However, Paul points out the rather obvious flaw in this and that is that the UN needs to backup and enforce it's own sanctions. Paul himself said he would have been fine with voting for the war had the US itself declared war on Iraq rather than doing so under the UN pretence. (He wants us out of the UN btw, another 100 points for Paul on my scorecard :)
"Personally, I'm very torn about who to vote for. I'm registered Republican, but I'd rather be independent."
Honestly, I like all of the underdog republican guys, Paul as I said stands out. I like Huckabee, Hunter etc. Th top tier guys are kinda jokes in my assesment. Romney has a awful record of comprimise on moral issues (sorry Edgar), Guiliani doesn't know what a moral issue is, Thompson doesn't seem too bad I suppose. But these are my rather surface thoughts on the candidates.
Bob,
Thanks for elaborating - even more than I expected. One question stands out for me from your answers which is if you are ok with the government not throwing people in jail for self-destructive behavior of drugs/alcohol, would you support the same idea on abortion? That, too, is on the libertarian platform, which not a support of abortion, but keeping government out of all areas of birth control, pre- or post-conception.
Personally, I like Guiliani's view and statement of abortion the best of the so-called pro-choice candidates. He has stated time and time again that he is personally hates abortion, wouldn't tell someone to get one, and would advise someone over and over about options other than abortion. But despite that, the law is the law, and he believes that prosecuting a woman the same way as a cold blooded murder is uncompassionate and completely inappropriate if Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned.
Guiliani may have moral shortcomings, but if we are looking to stop legislating morality, then this shouldn't be an issue for us. Personally, I also fall into the camp that we need to stop legislating morality.
I have also changed my view of the Iraq war, and actually war period. This comes from a challenge in reading Blue Like Jazz and Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller. He didn't write directly on this issue, but both books challenged the consistency of what I believed. So for this topic, if I am going to say that I am "pro-life", shouldn't I be consistent in being pro-life on all areas that life is threatened: babies, criminals, enemies? In the book I'm reading now Father of My Fathers by Chris Seay that one of the people in the conversation points out that it seems ironic the Democratic party isn't pro-life in the area of abortion when it seems pro-life in topics of the death penalty, war, drugs, smoking, etc. That's something worth thinking about, I think.
While Obama didn't have a vote in 2004, he has been on the record throughout his campaigns to be against it, so I think it is fair to put him on the short list with Paul as for being against Iraq from the start.
Since you were so open, I will share that right now I am in a toss-up between Guiliani and Huckabee. Thompson is a dud, and Romney definitely has Kerry-like flip-flop abilities.
Unfortunately, as I was discussing this with my father, Pennsylvania is so late in the primary that we may not really have a vote because often it a nomination is definitely or essentially wrapped up by May. I don't see that moving up in time - our state legislature is slower than molasses stuck in traffic.
But from a general election point of view, I'm being serious in my investigation of Obama. I've heard him speak a couple of times from downloads from non-campaign talks, like the Sojourners convention of last year, and despite my disagreements with some of his positions, he is very fair minded and desires discussion of disagreements. He is not of the old guard, and would certainly offer a "not-the-same-type-of-politics" approach". But that said, I think Guiliani and Huckabee could offer some of the same since neither holds their toe to the party line.
I don't really think Hillary will be elected. I think people will eventually wake up and realize that there has been a Bush or Clinton in the White House since 1988. Do we really want to continue that trend?
(At least I hope people are realizing that...) :)
Thanks for the thought-provoking topic!
Hey Tim, thanks again for your thoughts. You asked:
"Thanks for elaborating - even more than I expected. One question stands out for me from your answers which is if you are ok with the government not throwing people in jail for self-destructive behavior of drugs/alcohol, would you support the same idea on abortion?"
Not at all, if we were following a more libertarian government philosophy abortion never would have been sanctioned federally to begin with. Also, the real issue is that abortion is murder, it is not self destructive behaviour like wasting your life smoking pot. The issue to me comes down to a definition of personhood, if a baby constitutes a person then given the murder laws it would be unlawful to kill him or her. So unlike pot smoking killing babies should be a punishable crime. I think we've had pro-abortion laws for so long it seems rather radical to even talk about the issue the way it is, abortion kills babies, people who kill babies should be locked up.
"Personally, I like Guiliani's view and statement of abortion the best of the so-called pro-choice candidates. He has stated time and time again that he is personally hates abortion, wouldn't tell someone to get one, and would advise someone over and over about options other than abortion. But despite that, the law is the law, and he believes that prosecuting a woman the same way as a cold blooded murder is uncompassionate and completely inappropriate if Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned.
Why is that incompassionate? I find it rather incompassionate on this womans part that she didn't mind killing her baby because having it might interfere with her career. I just think we (espescially politicians and news editorialists) use these emotively loaded words to make it sound like we are doing the right thing when in reality we are not. Ex:"Diversity", "tolerance", "free choice", "my right" etc.
"So for this topic, if I am going to say that I am "pro-life", shouldn't I be consistent in being pro-life on all areas that life is threatened: babies, criminals, enemies?"
Well I think you can be against abortion but support the death penalty with no contradiction. The difference is rather obvious, on the one hand you have an innocent (at least legally, I think babies are sinners) life being taken whereas with an execution (given the real guilt of the executed) you have a person who has forfeited his right to live through heinous breaking of the law. Both of these stances are Biblical.
"Since you were so open, I will share that right now I am in a toss-up between Guiliani and Huckabee. Thompson is a dud, and Romney definitely has Kerry-like flip-flop abilities."
Yes, Romney seems to have the same super abilities as Kerry, the ability to transform his position given his audience. This makes him a threat. Go with Huckabee, Guiliani morally is a complete wreck. He's on his what 5th wife? That matters. If he drops these women who he made oaths for life before God to how do you think he will treat his constituants?
To add to my Guiliani smeary: as for the faithfulness aspect, I know he was moving in with one of his wives while he was still divorcing the other. I somehow don't find a guy who is that sleazy with the person he is supposed to love and cherish the most to be very trustworthy in public office. Nevertheless the highest public office.
Hi Bob,
Thanks again for your honest comments. I hope that it was clear that I am not for abortion despite my comments about liking Guiliani's perspective. Liking probably isn't the best word. Respecting his truthfulness and his opinion is probably a better way to put it.
As for Guiliani's morality, I don't know that being on his 3rd wife disqualifies him from office. Reagan was seen as a moral figure, but he was not still married to his first wife. I think Guiliani is catholic so it is possible that he was married through the church, but it is just as likely he wasn't since the Catholic church wouldn't sanction a second or (gasp) third marriage, so I'm not going to assuming they were oaths before God in his marriage ceremonies.
Despite Guiliani's personal morality, he sure did a fantastic job cleaning up NYC. He was already an outstanding public leader way before 9/11. Under his watch, crime decreased by 57%, murder by 65%. People on welfare went from 1 out of every 7 NYC residents to 1 out of every 14! That was 640,000 people off of welfare that became self-sufficient. He cut taxes by $2.5 billion, yet was able to increase the available public education funding by $4 billion. In short, he knows how to get things done. As my friend was saying to me last night, "Rudy is a do-er, and I'll give a do-er a chance any day over a talker."
Huckabee, from what little I've heard, may also be a do-er. I just need to find out more about it. Just wonder how doing in Arkansas compares with NYC. (No Clinton innuendos intended) ;)
As far as the capital punishment is concerned, sure you can find OT support for it, but I don't think the new covenant will offer the same support. (The woman caught in adultery being the best example.) This also has personal meanings to me as I had a cousin murdered, and my aunt and uncle petitioned to courts to not give the death penalty as a sentence. My uncle was a Baptist minister, and I really respected and was moved by their action and explanation for it. They don't want him paroled, but they want him to know grace and the mercy of God someday. For me, life is life, regardless of the age. More importantly, we are called by the new covenant to love our enemies. I just don't see calling for their death because of their sin loving them.
Thanks again for starting this conversation and having a place that we are both free to be candid.
Post a Comment