I’m Voting for Ron Paul…and you Should Too!
04 Feb 2008 20 Comments
in Politics Tags: Liberty, Politics, Ron Paul, Super Tuesday, vote
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Speaking up... 
ericbowman
Feb 04, 2008 @ 12:15:50
Whoa… cool! Welcome aboard the Ron Paul bandwagon.
Maria
Feb 04, 2008 @ 13:08:27
hmm…I’m sticking with Obama. Good luck to all you Ron Paul supporters.
ericbowman
Feb 04, 2008 @ 13:35:47
Maria – I’m not too far behind you on the Obama bandwagon. But Ron Paul was my first choice, so I’m with him until he drops out, or until the end if he runs as an independent.
elizamarie
Feb 04, 2008 @ 15:38:00
Universal Healthcare is pure ugly evil. I can’t vote of anyone who thinks it’s a good idea. As a healthcare professional, I am well aware that the system is broken, but having the government take over is a huge slippery step in the WRONG direction!
ericbowman
Feb 04, 2008 @ 16:41:09
Erica – While I’m no fan of universal healthcare, I think warmongering is a far more “pure ugly evil”. And one of the significant differences between Barack Obama and Hillary is that Obama’s plan won’t have a mandate, and you would be free to remain with private or employer-based insurance.
Will
Feb 04, 2008 @ 16:59:17
Obama? Not for me, I prefer liberty over crushing in-your-face big government. I would also like less taxes, not more. Mandate or not, all the recent Democratic proposals on health-care would erode choice. In the end, they all lead to the same conclusion. I also dislike his tendency to subsidize corn. Further, I find it a bit disengenious to claim himself as a candidate of change when he is a member of 170 year old party. He might be more free-market than Clinton, but that doesn’t really cut it. You have to be actually free market.
I don’t know of any “warmongering” candidates currently in the race.
ericbowman
Feb 04, 2008 @ 17:58:00
On your last point, John McCain is the very definition of a warmongerer. He of the “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” song and the 100 years in Iraq rhetoric. He is and always has been a neoconservative on foreign policy.
To your other points, assuming he is the Republian nominee, McCain is no great improvement over Obama. He voted against the Bush tax cuts and was responsible for McCain-Feingold, a great example of “crushing in-your-face big government” restrictions. And which Presidential candidate isn’t disingenuous? There’s no such thing as a genuine candidate, so that’s not a fair critique of Obama. Even McCain has been disingenous about the ethanol situation you seem concerned about. He has alternatively railed against the ineffectiveness of ethanol, while later referring to it “a vital alternative energy”.
Finally, let’s talk about choice in health care. Please explain how choice will be eroded under the Democratic proposals? You will have the choice of whether to participate in the government program or a private program. Unless I’m unaware of some nuance that indicates that doctors must accept all patients or must accept all forms of insurance, I don’t see an erosion of choice. Currently, many of the best doctors simply don’t accept insurance. The best care goes to those who are willing to pay a higher price. How will this change?
elizamarie
Feb 04, 2008 @ 18:13:42
Eric & Will,
All of these reasons (and more)are why I’m voting for Ron Paul, and why you should, too!
Yay for small government!
(By the way, I think all three of us are ‘for’ Ron Paul.)
Will
Feb 04, 2008 @ 19:53:43
As to health, a government who defines the playing field will eventually leave only room for itself on that playing field. Edwards (who some say set the model for the other two major candidates) made no secret of the possibility that his plan was a possible path to a single payer system. Government already has a gigantic slice of the health-care market with medicare and medicade. Health care reform should be simply setting a national standard for records management (computerized) and taxing health benifits uniformly. Obama doesn’t appear to have any notion of these straight-forward solutions. Instead he proposes a complicated and highly regulated solution, the very essence of a system doomed to failure and/or inefficiency. This year the call is for Obama/Clinton/Edwards plan, what will be the clamor in 10 or 20 years? Voting for the democratic candidates is in and of itself a step of erosion of the health-care system.
Excellent reasons not to vote for McCain. Though on the war, he alone is the best choice for leading the nation in war in Iraq (of the candidates). He was right that we needed more troops in the begining. He was right to be critical of Rumsfeld. And he was right about the surge. I found his bombing of Iran comment shocking and inappropriate. I’m not sure what his 100 years of Iraq comments are directed toward. However, a lengthy stay is entirely reasonable. The U.S. still has positions in Germany and South Korea. The long term strategy of the U.S. should be liberty and stability.
Ron Paul is genuine.
ericbowman
Feb 05, 2008 @ 01:16:26
I’ve supported Ron Paul since April, so I’m definitely voting for him in the primary. But let’s be realistic here – he’s not going to win the nomination. McCain will be the Republican nominee, and in that case I’m hoping Obama gets the Democratic nomination. I can hold my nose and vote for Obama.
Will, it’s highly questionable whether McCain felt we needed more troops in Iraq from the beginning. At the very least, he wasn’t on record as saying so. In fact, he is on the record with some quotes that suggest he didn’t believe that more troops were needed (and that he supported Rumsfeld’s strategy). McCain on Iraq.
On health care, I must disagree with you. I see nothing in Obama’s plan that leads me to believe it is a path to a single-payer system. With Edwards, nothing would surprise me, but Obama is not Edwards. I can agree with you that universal health care is a complicated solution to a relatively straigh-forward problem. My main opposition to universal healthcare is the cost, but I don’t buy the argument that a plan without mandates is somehow a restriction of freedom. The only danger of that is if the government were to make medical care paid for by private funds illegal. Again, I see no evidence of this in Obama’s plan. It’s one thing to be critical of Obama’s plan (which I am), and another thing entirely to have no plan, which appears to be the case with most of the Republican candidates.
ericbowman
Feb 05, 2008 @ 01:19:12
I’m apparently too dumb to make the links work. Anyway, here it is:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/17/mccain/
Eli
Feb 05, 2008 @ 09:42:54
Eric, would it change your mind about Obama at all to know that there are rumors he will offer Edwards the Attorney General job if Edwards endorses him?
ericbowman
Feb 05, 2008 @ 12:03:48
Eli – Not in the least. I’ve lived through John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales as AG, so John Edwards is the least of my concerns.
Will
Feb 05, 2008 @ 21:59:26
Wow, from Ron Paul to Obama and Edwards.
ericbowman
Feb 05, 2008 @ 23:53:24
First off, the Edwards as AG rumor is just that: a RUMOR. If we’re concerned about endorsers getting cabinet positions, I’m far more concerned about Rudy Giuliani than I am John Edwards.
Eli
Feb 06, 2008 @ 00:08:25
Eric, I think you’ve been reading a little too much Mother Jones.
ericbowman
Feb 06, 2008 @ 01:10:51
I’ve read a grand total of one article in my life from Mother Jones, and it had no political bias that I could find.
Veronica
Feb 06, 2008 @ 19:01:29
Wowsers. Quite the debate here. And although I’ve never commented on Will’s blog, I feel the urge to.
1. The US is one of the only first world nations that has an ENORMOUS population of poor, working poor, and homeless. John Edwards was the ONLY candidate talking about them and how to help them. Ironically, Edwards was the wealthiest of the candidates, at least on the Democrats side. I’m waiting & praying for Obama to take up that torch. I could give two hoots if I have to pay more taxes to give people basic human necessities.
2. Again, you may not like the idea of a more socialized-like universal health care system. I’m sure we’ll get big chunks out of our paychecks for it. BUT, working for the VA health care system, which has been labeled the best health care anywhere, and having lived in a Scandinavian country, healthcare for all is nothing to throw a stick at. I know that I live in a democracy and if the gov’t flubs up universal healthcare, I can write my congressman, sign petitions, work to educate legislators. I can’t do crap to change or regulate or appeal to Blue Cross Blue Shield. And BCBS doesn’t give a crap about the family living on food stamps and trying to make ends meet. Government should; community should; people should.
3. Don’t get me started on war.
Perhaps I’m a softy and living far from DC, I’m less in touch with the gov’t engine. Maybe I have more optimism than political savvy. But I must say that a country is more than a government or an economy or a war, we’re a community. It goes beyond pocketbooks and taxes and who is taking what from whom. We should look out for one another… everyone.
elizamarie
Feb 06, 2008 @ 20:16:18
This is my blog! 🙂
You know me, I am also an optimist. I absolutely think that everyone should get their needs met, but I think that it should be done privately rather than from the government. I practice what I preach and participate in a
program that provides counseling at no cost for military families in need. There are no forms to fill out, no max number of sessions, and no third parties tracking diagnoses. It’s exactly what welfare in this country should be- from the people to the people, voluntarily.
Will
Feb 06, 2008 @ 20:24:48
Well, I was going to let this debate slip away, but now that V has joined the fun, I can’t resist.
First, I agree. People should look out for one another, they should care for and love one another. I believe it is core to the human experience to work with each other. However, I don’t think this cooperation should be government mandated. Using a massive government effort means inefficiency and one solution to all problems. It is actually very limiting in my view.
A better solution would be to let people freely organize themselves in what they deem the most efficient and high impact way of fighting whatever problem presents itself. As for Blue Cross the best idea is to simply avoid them. Loosing customers will get their attention and it is far easier than all the energy input into your congressman and the bureaucracy.
As long as you choose to pay more taxes, I say great. You can decide if the government is giving you a good value. However, I disagree with anyone who forces me to pay more taxes, that’s my business.
Glad to see you finally comment! 🙂