please give him all of your money (within the limits of our broken campaign finance regulations)
Someone asked me yesterday who, at this early stage, I’m supporting for President in 2008. I am not a registered member of either major party, and even though there are 400 people running, it is not a difficult decision.
Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only candidate with a philosophy that’s based on liberty.
I know that you’ve already closed this window, but just in case you hit the wrong button or there’s a bug in your browser, I’m going to keep going.
Forget about the fact that he was elected (this time) as a Republican. Look at his record.
If liberty is not your single most important issue — and, by the way, why not? — perhaps these notes will interest you:
- If ending the Iraq war is your hot-button, there is no surer vote you could cast to put an end not only to this war, but the entire doctrine that led to it. No other candidate talks as seriously about not just recalling troops, but ending the entire foreign policy nightmare of police actions and empire-building.
- If you oppose the PATRIOT act and the “war on terror”, he was one of only three Republicans to vote against it.
- If you believe that most issues — from drug policy to gay (or, for that matter, heterosexual) marriage — should be decided by the states individually, then step away from that noose! You can for the first time support a candidate who remembers our constitution.
- CNET ranked members of the 109th Congress by their voting records on technology issues; Dr. Paul received the highest score of the entire Congress.
- He’s taken a stand against the poisonous REAL ID national ID scheme that the EFF and ACLU oppose so strongly.
Until last month I’d never made a political contribution in my entire life. And to everyone who sighs, election after election, about the lack of principled, common-sense politicians, I urge you to contribute while our money still has any chance of making a difference.
JKT said,
March 3, 2008 @ 13:16
On the other hand, Paul does not support Net neutrality–he thinks that the ISPs should have the “freedom” to dictate to us how or if they will route data. At first that might sound like it makes sense but they also will (under Paul) be under no obligation to tell us they are routing or quashing our data, and that takes away our freedom to make informed choices in the open marketplace. See, that’s the thing Paul often misses–that his objection to certain policies on the grounds of “freedom” often are at the expense of other freedoms. Government is (supposedly) there to protect the freedoms of the people. Under the GOP it’s been protecting the freedoms of big business. I’m for a candidate that will reverse the current policies, not just do away with them. We need someone who will implement changes that will swing the pendulum the other way for a while until balance is achieved. A hands-off approach such as Paul’s will not do that.
phik said,
March 27, 2008 @ 21:35
I can certainly sympathize with your point about net neutrality, but I guess that doesn’t move my needle for a couple of reasons.
First, I’m not convinced that I want government trying to regulate net neutrality myself. Are we really going to legislate router settings? Because I think that’s what it boils down to. I can’t imagine any world in which Congress doesn’t screw that up, can you?
More importantly, if that’s the biggest complaint we can muster, I’ll gladly make the trade.
If we could elect a President that would use his power as commander in chief to bring troops home from their hundred-plus foreign occupations, force Congress to override countless vetoes of unconstitutional and deficit spending, stop illegally spying on Americans, close Guantanamo, rein in the Treasury and (as best Congress will permit) the Fed, cease the War on Drugs, &c. — and in return, I have to accept that he might veto net neutrality?
Done and done. Twice on Sundays.