Newt: Would his baggage fly for free on JetBlue???

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack


"Thank you for flying Jet Blue today, Mr. Gingrich. How   many bags will you be traveling with?"
"Five."
"You know that there is a surcharge for additional bags, as well as a surcharge if each bag is over fifty pounds."
"No problem, I'll just charge it to my campaign. Traveling is a legitimate campaign expense."
"Great sir, place that first bag on the scale."
"It's kind of heavy"
"Well let's just see, sir. Wow, its over 200 pounds. What's in it?
"Well, that holds my expulsion from the House of Representatives."
"You were expelled sir?, Why?"
"I'm still not sure. I transferred some of the money from my campaign accounts to establish my teaching course and I forgot to report that to the IRS."
"You evaded paying taxes?"
"It's a gray area."
"But isn't that a crime, sir?"
"It was forgiven if I gave up my seat and admitted to it. So, it wasn't a problem."
"I am sorry, sir, but I'm going to have to charge you for that bag."
"No problem."
"The second bag, sir."
"Here we go young man..."
"Wow, it is over 500 pounds. What's in it?"
"Well, my divorces are in there."
"But sir, I thought you were a Christian Conservative espousing family values."
"Let me remind you young man, divorce is not a capital crime."
"I know sir, but didn't you lie to your ex-wives multiple times and then leave them?"
"Divorce can happen to anyone."
"But you did it twice, sir."
"I can pay my bills, young man, so let's get on with it."
"Yes sir, the third bag, please."
"It's also pretty hefty."
"What's in that one?"
"Well, I have my educational materials and lobbying career in that one."
"And why is that so heavy?"
"I'll tell you. I have written a lot of books, as has my current wife. Then there are tapes, pamphlets etc. And of course my business career. After leaving Congress I offered my "consulting" services  to the highest bidders for my historical perspective--I am an historian you know. It came to millions."
"I see sir. I didn't know companies paid historians that well." 
"They do if you know the right people in Washington."
"And the fourth bag sir?"
"Well, my age and weight are in that one. I'm 68 years old and I weigh over 250 pounds."
"Yes, sir, that's a big load for a man who wants to be President. But I know, just charge it. And the last bag, what's in that?"
"It's my character."
"That one is the heaviest of all. Well over a ton. But I understand why. A President needs strong character to do his job as he never knows what crises he will face."
"You are so right my boy."
"Mr. Gingrich, I'm afraid we will have to scrub you off of this flight."
"And why would you do that?"
"Just too much baggage, Mr. Gingrich. The plane won't fly."


The Center by Jerry Morgan


Newt is a mixed blessing for the Republicans. On the positive side of the ledger he is a veteran politician who knows first-hand the ins and outs of Congress. On the negative side of the ledger, he is a veteran politician who is a Washington insider. On the positive side he has proven that he could work with the other party to  get important legislation passed in both houses and by the executive. On the negative side, he has shown a willingness to meet the Democrats half way, to compromise, to be reasonable, traits not admired by those on the right which will hamper him in states like Iowa. On the positive side, he is a reasoned intellectual who is capable of analyzing a problem and coming up with alternative solutions which may or may not be mainstream. On the negative side, he is an independent thinker---a radical concept these days.
On the positive side, he has had business experience since leaving Washington. On the negative side, he has  had business experience since leaving Washington. On the positive side, he has known many women serially, including two failed marriages. On the negative side, there was some parallelism. On the  positive side he consulted for Fanny and Freddie. On the negative side, he consulted for Fanny and Freddie, entities he now claims to despise. On the positive side Newt is not afraid to speak his mind. On the negative side sometimes what he has to say should not be on his mind. 
Does Newt have too much baggage to fly for free on Jet Blue? Definitely, but name one politician who doesn't.


The Right by Dwight Cameron


Why I, an ardent fiscal and social conservative am for Newt:

First, I do not trust Romney.  He seems to have big government instincts--not my cup of tea.  The last thing we need is another W.  Newt knows how Washington works and knows how to compromise; he and Bill Clinton had a plan to save Social Security until Bubba scuttled it.  He is an excellent debater.  He has good ideas, expresses them well and can think on his feet.  Four years ago he wrote Real Change, a book where he outlined his ideas which, he claimed, may garner support among the majority of Americans. I agree. For instance, we obviously have a great many energy resources which could be developed to make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.  The Republican slogan of  "drill, baby, drill" was one of Newt's ideas that he outlined in his book.  The other Republicans have either flamed out or could not get the support of the main-stream of the Party. I believe Newt is a small government conservative at heart and like the Manchester Union Leader, he has my endorsement. For the endorsement itself:http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111127/NEWS/711279999

Sure,  Newt has heavy baggage but not sooo heavy. Go Newt!

Our picks in the Iowa caucus

The Right by Dwight Cameron

As I made clear in an earlier post, Newt is my man. I personally do not trust Mitt, although I would vote for him against Obama. Also, in another post I mentioned that I like most of Paul’s platform, but disagree on his foreign policy. That being said, who will the Iowa caucus on January 3^rd? 

It is apparent from the latest CNN/Time/ORC poll that Newt is slipping; he is now behind a surging Rick Santorum in fourth place. Romney is a few points ahead of Paul who is several points ahead of Santorum. Don’t ask me why or what the Iowans are thinking, but Santorum has gathered a steam roller of momentum over the last week, increasing his standings in the polls from single digits to 16 percent.

Apparently, the evangelical block has coalesced around the self-proclaimed evangelical Rick Santorum who spent time hunting with the right people the day after Christmas (www.npr.org has a great pic of Rick in his orange hunting gear) while Bachmann and Perry were laboriously scouring the countryside. Santorum was hunting pheasants with conservative congressman Steve King who has not yet officially endorsed him, but he did get the endorsement of a prominent Christian conservative, Bob Vander Plaats, CEO of the Family Leader an Iowa social conservative organization.

The evangelicals in Iowa wield the power. If they vote as a block rather than splinter their vote among the six candidates, and they decide to support Santorum, then he can pull the upset that he has been counting on. Rick Santorum has practically been living in Iowa for weeks now, hoping that he can do what Mike Huckabee did four years ago—win it all. My prediction is that when it comes down to it, Iowans will shy away from both front runners, Romney and Paul, for various reasons. 

The momentum that Rick Santorum has gathered over the last week can and will propel him to the victory that his campaign so desperately needs.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

According to Realclearpolitics.com the average of the latest polls, in Iowa, show Ron Paul in the lead but within the margin of error. A week is an eternity in politics so we cannot rule out an unexpected outcome, but after this exhaustive process it isn’t likely. 

I think we can happily wave goodbye to Michelle Bachman. She is polling at 8.7 percent; she is low on cash and will not be able to mount a last minute advertising blitz that would put her in contention. On paper, she presents the best candidacy: the best political arguments, best presentation of them and the greatest congruency to the Iowan constituency. She loses on the basis of her overbearing personality, her hideous voice and harsh nature. In short, she is like the loud-mouthed neighbor most people don’t like. 

Rick Santorum who is polling slightly lower loses for similar reasons. He isn’t quite as repulsive but also lacks charisma; he is bland, uninspiring and off track on foreign policy as many people feel he is most likely to get us into another war. 

Gingrich is slaughtered by his past. There is simply too much baggage for him to overcome, especially in Iowa. Even if he raises the money it won’t matter. He is perceived as a mean-spirited pragmatist posing as an idealist that would say or do anything to promote his media empire. 

I am not going to declare Huntsman toast, although a non-factor in Iowa, he could make a surprising comeback in New Hampshire. 

Perry is currently at 12 percent in the Iowa polls, ahead of Bachman and Santorum and if he performs to that number he will survive to fight another day but it is extremely doubtful he can pull an upset, splitting the evangelical vote with Bachmann and Santorum. Perry can bank on getting the combined vote of Bachmann and Santorum once they are gone which should be soon after the polls close on January 3, 2012. 

That leaves Romney and Paul to fight it out in the cornfields of Iowa. Despite all of his protestations to the contrary, Romney’s flip-flopping has hurt him. Although he has made the political calculation that he can overcome his flip-flopping, his personality is so disingenuous it feeds into the perception that he is a con-man running to satisfy his ego. In any case, his formula has not moved the needle substantially, and the money he spent debunking Newt has benefitted Paul in Iowa. 

However, a Paul victory is a Romney victory so the money was well spent. Paul is perceived as sincere, intelligent and capable. He also has captured the anti-war sentiment that Santorum and Bachmann miscalculated. So, Ron Paul will win the Iowa caucus, and that and two dollars and fifty cents will get you a ride on the New York City subway and very little else.

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Is Iowa up for grabs? Will there be a favorite among the ever so important evangelical right as was the case 4 years ago when Mike Huckabee won a resounding victory, or is the evangelical block fractured among the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum?  

Also vying for this strong voting block is Dr. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Yes, there are more than a few in the Bible Belt who are willing to forgive the latter, a self-confessed sinner for his past transgressions and believe the former, an accused bigot when he says he knows not who wrote horrible platitudes about blacks and Jews in his newsletters. 

The Republican right is confused with as many as 66 percent of Iowans capable of either changing their minds or undecided according to a recent CBS news article.

So the latest Rasmussen poll, which clearly shows Mitt Romney pulling away from Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich cannot be trusted as indicative of anything more than capturing the moment. But the voters are not voting this moment. In fact, they have a whole week to decide if they can really vote for a Morman who used to be pro-choice and used to be pro-Gay and used to be a governor from the liberal state of Massachusetts, the architect for ObamaCare. They are being inundated with ad after ad showing the new Mitt who is taking shots at the old Newt.

The question for Iowans comes down to who to believe: the new Mitt, the new Newt, the old and new but not a bigot Paul, or none of the above. My guess is many of the evangelicals will reject all three front runners on moral and religious grounds and split their vote among Bachmann, Perry and Santorum. I do indeed feel sorry for the GOP electorate in Iowa for their dilemma when on January 3, 2012 they must caucus for the candidate to represent their party in the Presidential race against the incumbent Barack Obama. 


I know how I would cast my vote if I were one of them and I will share my secret with you. I would vote my conscience for Michele Bachmann, the consistent conservative, the true Iowan in the race and that is my long-shot prediction. Michele Bachmann, a shocking winner in Iowa.

Jon Huntsman: The Forgotten Man!?

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah, former ambassador to China under Barack Obama, and former businessman seems to be “different” than the others remaining in the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. But is he really different? He is strictly party line on issues of pro-life, gay marriage, and taxes. Where he differentiates himself is on issues related to foreign policy where he is more “middle of the road” than most. He has a plan to pull out of Afghanistan and his intimate knowledge of the Chinese autocracy is an advantage, even though he has been embroiled in controversy as a result of being visible in front of a McDonald’s restaurant in Beijing during a recent protest.

As far as his jobs record there is some controversy. According to a Bloomberg news story published on June 15. 2011, his once family run chemical business employed 90% Americans ten years ago, but since going public in 2005 now employs over 12,000 workers with only 2000 in North America and the rest scattered over Asia. His plan of creating jobs by stimulating the economy with lower taxes and free trade may work, but I consider it an experiment that this country can ill afford to gamble on. His attacks on the EPA are nothing more than the GOP chorus of “drill baby drill”.  Again, his attacks on the NLRB and ObamaCare  is more preaching to the choir.

The bottom line is that Jon Huntsman is probably a more stable candidate than the others, lacks the nastiness of some, the overt flip-flopping of others, and the extreme positions of yet others. Is he a moderate? Certainly not, but he may not be conservative enough for the GOP base. As for me, he seems more rational than most of the others, more qualified on foreign affairs than most of the others, more in tune with big business than most of the others and more experienced administering a government than most of the others. But in substance, he offers only minor differences on most issues. I suspect that after staking the future of his candidacy on New Hampshire, he will fade away into oblivion after the polling closes in that state on January 10^th.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Jon Huntsman may well be the forgotten man of the Republican field of candidates for President. He has an impressive resume. He is urbane, articulate and experienced in government. He served in the Reagan White House as a staff assistant, served in the George H.W. Bush administration as deputy assistant Secretary of Commerce and Ambassador to Singapore, served two terms as governor of Utah and served in the Obama administration as ambassador to China. He worked in the private sector for his father’s company as an executive of The Huntsman Corporation and the family philanthropic organization, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation.  Huntsman was a high school dropout who received his G.E. D and attended the University of Utah, serving a two-year Mormon mission to Taiwan. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in International Politics. He is a devout family man with seven children, a devout Mormon who accepts the validity of science.

As the governor of Utah, Huntsman earned high grades. He cut taxes, instituted a flat tax but increased spending. He was immensely popular, being re-elected with 77 per cent of the vote. His views on the issues are notably more moderate than the other candidates. Huntsman signed the China Initiative for the reduction of greenhouse gases and has admitted the effect man has had on the environment though, like the others, he has rejected cap and trade as a solution.  Like the others he has advocated for the building of the Keystone Pipeline. Huntsman is very knowledgeable about foreign affairs, especially Asia and has distinguished himself as a human rights advocate in this region. In this regard, he has a distinct advantage over any of the other candidates. Huntsman has advocated strongly for comprehensive immigration reform, he vowed to veto legislation that would have discontinued tuition aid to illegal immigrants and not allow illegal immigrants the ability to obtain a drivers license. He has advocated the building of a fence at the border.  In foreign policy, Huntsman has criticized President Obama’s decision to leave Iraq and advocated a contingent force remain there. In his debate with Gingrich, Huntsman echoed the theme that Iran is an existential threat and “all options should remain on the table,” but reiterated that America’s primary threats and interests are in the pacific. In lockstep with the other candidates and Republican ideology, Huntsman signed various bills which restricted abortion in Utah and although he favors civil unions he frowns on same sex marriage. I scoured the Internet for his position on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and found that he had not an announced position on that issue. As to Health Care, he opposes “Obamacare” because it is too expensive and is a shroud over the economy. Yet he endorsed a personal mandate when he was governor as well as Mitt Romney’s Health Care plan in Massachusetts.

As a committed Liberal, I believe Barack Obama is a better choice than all of the Republican candidates, not only because I support his views and his values, but because he is the most able communicator, most empathetic advocate for his positions, most highly educated as well as the best decision maker in times of crisis. In considering this set of criteria, I would immediately eliminate the entire Republican field with the exception of Jon Huntsman who I believe has proven to meet my criteria.        

But Huntsman’s perceived moderation has proven to be his Achilles heel among Republican voters who are not in the slightest bit interested in compromise. They want to exact revenge for the liberal onslaught on George Bush and the Iraq war, on Obama’s efforts to ameliorate the plight of the poor, and his efforts to make the rich pay their fair share.  Even if they do not succeed in beating Obama, they want Obama to know the extent of their wrath, and they will back anyone who will exceed propriety in taking him down. That explains nasty old Newt’s rise in the polls to the frontrunner status. Republicans want to dismantle the “Welfare State.” They want to privatize Social Security, privatize Health Care and privatize Medicare.  That works against Huntsman who implemented very extensive social engineering during his term as governor.

If Huntsman survives to the states that have open primaries, and can prove that he can get a credible percentage in deeply conservative states he may emerge out of the clouds into contention in a race that has seen frontrunners come and go like the wind. The next gust may just blow his way. So while Huntsman is the forgotten man at the moment, he is counting on a good showing in New Hampshire which can put him firmly in contention. By my estimation he would be a far more formidable candidate than Romney or Gingrich and as a firm supporter of the President, the candidate I fear the most.

The Iowa debate: The ten thousand dollar bet—“Mother of Mercy, is this end of Mitt?”

The Center by Jerry Morgan

 I feel sorry for Mitt Romney, not because he had what seemed to be an almost insurmountable lead amongst all GOP candidates and has slowly watched it slip away as Newt Gingrich climbed stealthily in the polls to the head of the leader board and Ron Paul, a candidate that most people snickered at, is now likely to outpoll him in the Iowa caucuses. Yes, Mitt may not finish better than third in Iowa, despite committing to spend tons of money on campaign ads and scheduling a blitzkrieg of appearances over the next few weeks. 

If the truth be told, I believe it is all over for Mitt. He is like the front runner in the New York Marathon who gets passed just before entering Central Park where the real race for the finish begins. Or perhaps more like the front runner turning for home in the Kentucky Derby who gets passed before they can straighten out for the stretch run. Perhaps he will fade like Rudy Giuliani did in 2008, without even winning a single primary. More likely, though, he will hang on at least for a few more months like Mike Huckabee did against John McCain. There is a chance he will fight tenaciously to the finish like Hillary Clinton did against Barack Obama. One can think of many more analogies, but few if any that show the front runner that has been passed by like he was standing still ever coming back to win. In 2008, he held on until after Super Tuesday, when John McCain emerged as the clear winner. At this point it is doubtful that he will do better or even as well as his 2008 showing. But that is not why I feel sorry for the man; he has my pity because it has become abundantly clear that Mitt no longer knows who he is. 

Mitt has become whatever his campaign managers advise that he needs to be. When he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he was for a woman’s right to choose (although he and his family would never consider abortion), as was he when he ran against Ted Kennedy and lost in 1994. Throughout his term of office as Governor, he was a staunch advocate and friend of the Gay Rights movement, in favor of civil union, although he stated that he favored a constitutional amendment that the institution of marriage is only between a man and a woman.

It is no small wonder that this political hack is having trouble figuring out just what the real Mitt Romney stands for when I doubt he knows himself. While I believe that in his heart, Mitt may be closest to my own political, moral, and philosophical views of any of the candidates, it would only be a guess, and I am not willing to cast my vote on my ability to read minds. Mitt, may I offer you a bit of advice from a very wise man: “to thine own self be true”.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Unlike many Liberals, I am not going to hold Mitt Romney accountable for his flip-flops. People have a right to change their minds, even if it is for political gain. I saw Romney on C-Span the other night and heard him explain how he arrived at his positions. It wasn’t all that convincing, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. He claims to be pro-life, and if elected President, I haven’t the slightest doubt that he will sign any legislation that restricts or abolishes a woman’s right to get an abortion. As far as his position on healthcare, why shouldn’t I believe him? If he gets elected he will do everything in his power to repeal The Affordable Care Act and let the system run as it did before. He says he endorses the Ryan budget and a balanced budget amendment, and I believe if he is elected he will sign that budget and campaign to change the constitution. I believe that he has taken the pledge never to raise taxes and if elected President, I believe he would never raise taxes. He claims to come from the business world and therefore knows how to create jobs. That I don’t believe; the type of business he conducted at Bain capital gave him no insight into the complex shell game of macro-economics. His economists will be right-wing remnants of the out of favor Austrian school of economics. Their policies is what got us into this liquidity trap in the first place. Unlike the other Republicans, I think he will be more cautious about getting us into another war, but less reluctant than Barack Obama. He would definitely nominate conservative judges to the courts, utilize Bush advisors on foreign policy and continue the culture war on every front to solidify his base. 

As to whether or not Republicans will nominate him: on the plus side of the ledger he stands a better chance of  beating Obama than does Newt Gingrich, on the negative side he is a .1 percenter.  A .1 percenter is amongst the elite Americans who control 5% of the wealth in this country.  Mitt clearly does not relate to the average American as per the huge gaffe he made in the Iowa debate, offering a ten thousand dollar bet with Senator Perry when the average Iowan and average American could never contemplate that large a wager.  Mitt has in the past endorsed many of the Democrat’s platforms including healthcare and a woman’s right to choose. Yes, he is a definite flip-flopper and as Governor Perry pointed out, he was a strong advocate for the Massachusetts brand of healthcare, strongly recommending in the first edition of his book, that the  Massechusetts model serve as a guide for all the other states in the union.


As a result of his chameleon-like qualities, the GOP party base feels a basic mistrust for Romney; that he is a New England liberal, who governed as a liberal when he was in office, that he is faking it and will move farther to the left than most Republicans are comfortable with. Then there is the likability factor. That is also a negative for Romney. He is an inelastic, plastic, every dyed hair in place, anti-charismatic individual. Despite his best efforts he does not relate well to an audience. In fact, the cadence of his speech and the tenor of his intonations, make him irritating to listen to, bordering on nauseating. He is also a Morman, a religion looked upon by more than would care to admit in the party core, as a fringe, if not cult relilgion. That's two strikes out of three. At some point he will likely have to go mano a mano with Newt in order to win the nomination and so far, in every one on one confrontation Newt has come out the winner.  finally, it is difficult if not impossible for a Republican to win the nomination without the strong support of the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh. So far, Romney does not have the support of the Conservative media. They hated McCain but they abhor Romney. This was evident in the oft repeated Bret Baier interview. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tense-bret-baier-confronts-mitt-romney-over-health-care-mandate/

If Romney were to somehow win the nomination, which is looking more unlikely each day, I predict he will lose the election. He has taken the pledge not to raise taxes on the rich. He will make the argument that it is class warfare, but that is a losing argument. Also, by endorsing the Ryan budget he has declared that he would end Medicare.  Finally, he has endorsed a balanced budget amendment which means drastic cuts to social programs because of his pledge never to raise taxes. Despite a bad economy, the middle class will lean to Obama on these issues. His hard stance on immigration has alienated Latinos, and despite his statuesque, Presidential-like posture in the debates, he folds under pressure. I predict he will lose the debates with Obama. I am a firm believer in “black swan events.” Anything can happen in an election and usually does. But as Gus Sands said to Roy Hobbs in “The Natural” I think you’re a loser.” Sorry Mitt.

The Right by Dwight Cameron

As a fiscal conservative, I don't trust Mitt Romney.  There is something about his plasticized slickness that raises a red flag . . . one that says be wary.  Aside from this, there are more than a few tangibles which make me uncomfortable.  

He says he will repeal ObamaCare by giving each state a waiver.  But, according to my careful scrutiny of the program, he will not be able to grant these waivers until 2014.  In the interim, Obama’s program will become deeply entrenched into the bureaucratic framework and the practice of healthcare, which will make it more difficult if not impossible to remedy.  A direct defunding and immediate repeal is the manly way to proceed.  

There’s no denying that Mitt does have a history of changing his mind depending on the audience he's trying to woo.  These deep-rooted flip-flops do not give me confidence in knowing where he really stands.  Yes, this tends to be true of politicians in general, but his selling point is that he is not a politician.

I strongly disagree with his immigration policy as to illegal aliens.  Sending all 11 million back will require an unbelievable dragnet permeating the length and breadth of our great country.  Once we stem the flow of new immigrants by building a fence (or some other solution), we can then try to “legalize” the status of longer-term illegal residents by making them pay a fine to get a green card.  If they wish to become citizens they then should go to the "back of the line" but from their quasi-legal status in the U.S. not from their home country which is what Romney wants to do.

A place where his penchant for big government shows is in his capital gains tax proposal.  He picks winners and losers by picking an arbitrary income level and saying that those taxpayers below this level get the lower rate while those above it will pay a higher CG tax rate.  Capitalism works best with the free flow of goods, labor and capital.  A high CG tax creates a barrier to the flow of the latter.  A "millionaire" with a long-term holding of a stock may hold it to avoid the paying the tax although there may be other investments which will net him better gains (and a better economy for everyone else).  For a very long term investment much of the CG will be merely equal to the effect of inflation since a dollar in 1950 is probably worth $20 or more today.  Hence the CG tax on $100 of 1950s  XYZ  stock, sold for $2000 today will be entirely due to inflation since the stock has not really changed in value.   My point is that a policy should apply equally for all taxpayers and the government mandating who wins and who loses is not a conservative doctrine.  

The only thing positive that I can say for Mitt is that he may be able to attract moderates.  If this is so, he has a better chance of beating Obama than his rivals. As much as I don't trust Romney, I am sure he will be far better than the current occupant of the White House.  Thus, if he happens to win the Republican nomination I will have no problem voting for him.

Dr. Ron Paul--Defender of Liberty?!

Dr. Ron Paul—Defender of Liberty!?

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Ron Paul is an enigma. Is he an intellectual with a philosophy that has the answers to what ails the economy, the healthcare system, immigration, and defense? Or is he a pseudo-intellectual, masked behind lots of rhetoric and false science that has managed to prey upon the naïve public, impressing, mostly young people, with pseudo-economics, pseudo-science and libertarian idealism.  The Ron Paul devotees are the most ardent of supporters, people who really believe in the man, elevating him to something just short of sainthood. But does St. Paul really have all the answers? You would think so, listening to him, self-assured, preaching to the masses on why we should revert back to the gold standard and abolish the Fed. Everything that Obama, and Bush before him, initiated was wrong, especially healthcare, the bailout of the banks and GM, and foreign policy. Admittedly, my confusion arises when I find myself nodding in silent agreement to some of the things that he says; he is the only candidate in either party who is willing to take on the powerful military-industrial complex in this country. He promises to slash defense spending in areas where it does not really further the cause of defending our shores. But how does he have the expertise to know where the excesses lie? For that, he must rely upon our generals and if elected President he too would be burdened with the responsibilities of protecting the American people. He may very well yield to the pressures of his military advisors, realizing that the world is a far more complex place than he thought. I happen to believe that Thomas Jefferson, a minimalist with respect to government, had it right. But, in practice, we need government to manage the increasing complexities of modern societies. It is all a question of balance, and in the final analysis, while I respect some (maybe even a lot) of what Ron Paul espouses, my vote will go elsewhere, to someone who can find the middle of the road or at least aim for it.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Let’s go back to Rand Paul’s appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show as a doorway into his beliefs and those of  his father, which for all practical purposes, are identical. Rand Paul stated that he would not have voted for the civil rights bill because it imposed restrictions on individual freedom. If the owner of a private business wanted to restrict his clientele to white people that would be okay. That is his right. He even stated that although he hated racism and discrimination, the principle of individual freedom should not be violated. Libertarians like the Pauls pose the question of whether a society has the right to advocate for the public interest by requiring owners of private businesses not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or ethnic origin. At the heart of this position is the thesis that one should be allowed to do whatever he wants with his money and his property and that alone defines the public interest. The Pauls argue that this is the principle upon which the constitution is based and the foundation upon which America was founded. Everything and anything that tries to define the public interest as something else exceeds the constitution.

Ron Paul believes in non-interventionism. I call it isolationism. The Federal government is endowed with the responsibility to defend our borders. Nothing that happens outside of our borders should concern us. Although this seems plausible on the face of it, the world is regularly confronted by circumstances that could harm us if we don’t act to prevent them.  For example, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If these weapons were to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists they might use it to attack the United States. The same is true for states like Iran; a rogue regime could use a nuclear weapon to disrupt the world economy by threatening or even attacking its neighbors.  The Federal government must have the latitude to act—to face threats to our shores that begin off of our shores. However, I do agree with Paul that such action should be sanctioned by the Congress. However, I disagree with Paul when it comes to stopping genocide. My values place the responsibility of anyone and everyone with the ability to stop genocide to either band together to stop it or take unilateral actions to do so. Paul does not. He believes that events which do not directly threaten the national interests of the United States should not be the province of our intervention. Paul is an advocate of free trade. I am not. I believe in fair trade. Twenty million American jobs were free-traded away. Requiring trading partners to conform to certain working rules and labor practices as well as a non-manipulated currency should be conditions we impose on our trading partners. Paul believes that our borders should be secured and I agree with him. I also agree that our entitlements should only be afforded to those who earn citizenship legally. However, unlike Paul, I would not turn down medical treatment for an illegal immigrant who showed up at an emergency room.  Paul opposed airport security as an affront to individual freedom. I disagree. The government has a right to protect the public interest.  Paul argued that the United States violated the sovereignty of Pakistan in assassinating Osama Bin Laden. However, the government acted within its authority to preserve the public interest as Bin Laden posed an existential threat to our security.  I apply the same argument in response to his insistence that the drone attack on Anwar Al-Alaqi was a violation of international law.  In his advocacy for smaller government, Paul has advocated the shutting down of various government agencies which he argues have done more harm than good. These include the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Interstate Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security,  and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as well as the Federal Reserve. Without these agencies our society would be near chaos.  Although much of the money we send to Washington is wasted, the intent and actions of these agencies are justified. That does not mean that they should not be made more efficient, they should. Since the collective mandate of all of these agencies could never be carried out with the amount of taxes the government collects, the Federal Reserve issues debt securities to make up the difference. Ron Paul does not believe that the Fed should be allowed to carry out its dual mandate of stimulating the economy and creating jobs in times of slowdown by easing rates and conversely combating inflationary pressures by raising rates as necessary. Economists have done studies that prove that we would have lost many more jobs than we did if the Fed hadn’t intervened during the Great Recession by its programs of QE1 and QE2. They estimate that the unemployment rate would have peaked at closer to 15 percent rather than ten percent. A prudent Fed can mitigate the effects of economic declines and Ben Bernanke, a Princeton scholar and student of the Great Depression knew exactly what actions to take to keep this last downturn from becoming another depression.

So, my philosophical disagreements with Ron Paul are deep-rooted. I do respect men of reasoned intellectual persuasion, but not those who would lead us down a very dangerous and extremely slippery slope. This country may never be able to recover from a Ron Paul presidency. It would be an experiment with potentially dire consequences.

The Right by Dwight Cameron

Ron Paul, the Libertarian

Ron Paul is certainly a unique candidate with many unconventional positions, many of which people find outlandish.  However, he does make some very good points which should be considered.

The Federal Reserve 

The Fed has had an outsized effect on our economy which can be seen by the damage they have done.  According to Milton Friedman, they caused the Great Depression by attempting to shrink the money supply.  They later (in 1937) prolonged it by tightening and causing a second stock market collapse.  They have been instrumental in causing our current mess by creating barrels full of excess money which inflated housing prices which eventually collapsed.  And the jury is still out as to whether they did more harm than good with their Quantitative Easing initiatives. Yet, despite all the carnage, only Ron Paul, of the major candidates, is pointing his finger at them.  

Foreign intervention

Although Paul is too non-interventionist for me, he makes good points.  We cannot police the world nor impose our system on others who have neither desire for it nor ability to absorb it.  Putting our troops on the ground where we have no national interest at all and no money to pay for the expedition (remember, 40 cents of each dollar spent is borrowed) is in the end suicidal for us.

War on drugs

Prohibition of alcohol didn't work and prohibition of drugs doesn't work either.  We are wasting money and lives trying to stop a flood which can never be stopped.  If there is a market for these drugs and they are illegal then the criminal element will do the importing or manufacturing.  If they are legalized then legitimate companies will perform these functions and they can be better controlled; also, the price will come down so the need for criminal activities, like muggings, will be less necessary to support addicts' habits.  Further, we will add to the coffers by taxing these substances disproportionately heavy. Ron Paul and his Libertarian attitude will work toward this more rational policy.

   

Real budget cuts

When most politicians say they are cutting the budget they are really not reducing spending, they are actually increasing spending.  The Federal budget works on a "baseline" which increases each year automatically by some ridiculous amount, say 8%.  It is this 8% higher budget which is then the subject of "cuts."  If a legislator says he is cutting the budget 3% it really means he is increasing expenditures 5%.  There will be screaming by the liberals of how this 5% increase is gutting the budget and ending vital programs (like building turtle tunnels in Florida or ice cone machines in Michigan).  That last point was on the news today.  Ron Paul may be the only candidate who is proposing actual reductions in federal expenditures within the next few years.

These are some of the salient points which Paul makes.  His varied positions as shown above shows he and his ideas should be seriously considered.