What if Ron Paul won?

As many of you may know, I do not think that Ron Paul can, much less will, win this election. So you may think I have a certain bias when I write this. Fair enough. But I figured it’d be interesting to take a look at what a Ron Paul presidency would be like nonetheless.

In order to do this, I figured we’d base his presidency on his congressional record and statements he has made over the years. From this, we can begin to see what kind of president he would make. Would he be a good one? A great one? A bad one? An ineffective one? I can’t say I know for sure. We can only gauge this on what we do know.

Considering the roles of the President, we know that many things require congressional approval.  Any bill that is passed through the congress inevitably falls into the hands of the President. This we know. But if we take into account how Ron Paul has voted in the past, would any legislation get passed at all?

It’s hard enough when a Republican President has to deal with a Democratic Congress (and vice-versa!), but with a President like Ron Paul, would he be able to sign anything into law? Sure it might be nice to have a President who would only sign legislation that is strictly constitutional (at least according to Ron Paul’s interpretation), but I can’t see how anything would get passed at all. That may not sound too bad on the surface. However, what about budgets getting passed? Changes to Social Security? Improvements in government programs? It’s difficult to gauge what, if any, legislation could get past the Oval Office.

On the other side of the coin, Ron Paul wants to eliminate departments like Education, Homeland Security, and Energy. I hardly think that any Congress, Republican or Democrat would let that stand. Therefore, many of the things he would like to accomplish as President couldn’t be achieved due to opposition from Congress.

In reality, would Ron Paul have the power to do really anything he wanted to do in office? By his own principles, I don’t see how he could affect the federal government the way he wants to without the approval of a Congress that generally doesn’t agree with his point of view. And besides, if circumventing Congress is something he doesn’t want President Bush to do, he certainly wouldn’t allow himself to do it either.

When it comes to dealing with terror, I’m not sure I know what kind of job Ron Paul would do. He has often expressed that our involvement in the Middle East has caused the terrorist attacks on America, calling it “blowback.” So I wonder what he would do if, God forbid, we had another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I suppose there’s a chance he would simply apologize to our attackers saying ”it’s our fault you attacked us because we have been in your countries for so long.” Maybe he would retaliate in some form or fashion. But if he truly believes that our involvement is what has caused Islamic extremists to hate us, wouldn’t our retaliation, in theory, make things worse?

Granted, I personally think a vast withdrawal from the Middle East may not be a bad thing. But I don’t necessarily buy into the idea that our involvement over there is the only thing that makes us a target for jihadists. Furthermore, I think it’d be extremely naive to assume that even a withdrawal of such a large magnitude would somehow guarantee our safety from terrorism.

We also know that Ron Paul disapproves of sending foreign aid to other countries. So what about the crisis in Uganda and the Sudan? Would America continue to be that source of hope and help to poverty-stricken countries around the world? It doesn’t appear that kind of American generosity and benevolence would persist under a Ron Paul presidency.

Now, I will say that I believe that Ron Paul would appoint good justices to the Supreme Court. However, I doubt that anyone he appointed would receive approval from a Democrat-controlled Congress.

It is true that Ron Paul is a man of principle. I can’t deny that. But I do not see him being an effective President with a Congress that is virtually incompatible with his line of thinking. The only hope for any form of productivity in a Ron Paul presidency would be for Congress, in desperation, to pass legislation that they know a President Paul would sign. Although, I don’t think those circumstances would be all that likely.

The problem is not necessarily with Ron Paul. I’ve said that before. It’s the fact that you have such a wide array of views in America that in some ways, you have to reach some form of compromise in order for things to get done. I don’t believe it’s in any way unreasonable to assume that the views of Ron Paul and his supporters are in the vast minority of voting Americans. As a result, he will not be able to win the White House and even if he did, he could not be an effective President of the United States.

A Recent Bump for Romney?

Some of the latest poll numbers are showing a bit of a spike for Romney as of late. Even as of this morning, Meet the Press was talking up his management record.  Could it be that his victory in Ames has given him some momentum on the national scene? I think it’s certainly possible even though many have discounted his victory due to the lack of presence from other “top-tier” candidates.

 For the sake of my own amusement, let’s follow the rationale that Romney’s recent gains are the result of his victory in Ames, Iowa. Now that’s a straw poll where there’s a $35 entrance fee (typically paid for by the campaigns), free food, entertainment, and a host of other good old-fashioned GOP fun. This poll doesn’t count for anything officially. It’s just a big get-together of conservatives who like free food and schmoozing with Republican superstars. Right?

The Romney campaign will be quick to point out to you that in 1999, George W. Bush prevailed in Ames as well. They’ll also tell you that Ames is a key checkpoint in progressing to victory in the Iowa caucus. But what does that really mean for Romney? Who knows? It may not mean anything.

However, I must say that if Romney is enjoying an increase in poll numbers shortly after his victory in Ames, a straw poll that supposedly has no relevance, how much more so would he see increases were he to win the state of Iowa (which is he is apparently poised to do)?

Based on excellent numbers in New Hampshire, it seems that Romney could very likely take that state as well, thus resulting in 2 extremely important early victories in the primary process. If Romney prevails in those two states, along with a dark horse victory in South Carolina, who’s to say he won’t take the nomination itself?

Fortunately, that is the plan of the Romney campaign and I believe that it could prove to be quite successful. By all accounts, he seems to be on the right path for victory in 2008. Whether or not he will stay on that path remains to be seen.

Post-Ames Analysis

While most were projecting a Romney victory at the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa (including myself), I’m not sure that anyone expected such a large victory. Personally, I was thinking a modest mid-twenties showing would show Mitt’s organizational strength, but 31.5% is practically a landslide!

Obviously, Giuliani and McCain were punished for their failure to show up. I’d stop short of predicting that the primary will reflect these results because I still think many Iowans will support Giuliani. McCain made the biggest strategic mistake in not going to Ames. With his failing numbers and money nationwide, you might as well take him off the ballot in January. He needed something like Ames to keep his campaign alive. His failure to show up at the straw poll has perpetuated his downward trend into a political oblivion.

Some are saying that Romney’s victory is vastly overrated, but on the same coin, they prop up Huckabee and Brownback for coming in second and third by roughly 2000 votes less! But the way I see it is that if Romney garnered nearly double what his closest opponents did, wouldn’t that in turn make them irrelevant also? So basically, if you lose to a “loser,” didn’t you still lose? Correct me if I’m wrong…

Tancredo did fair in Ames, but who really cares? He’s almost as irrelevant as say….

Tommy Thompson? I’m glad he’s gone. Sometimes you’ve just got to cut the fat, I guess.

Duncan Hunter should quit immediately. If Tommy Thompson can quit with over 1000 votes, Hunter should follow suit due to his paltry showing.

Who is this John Cox and what was he doing on the ballot?

Then there’s that Ron Paul fellow. It appears that his grassroots cult of a following couldn’t carry him to a victory over Tancredo. However, this is one of the few respectable polls in which he managed to defeat Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson. He should savor this moment.

It’s interesting that Fred Thompson was on the ballot, but his lack of campaigning and his failure to enter the race made him slightly more relevant than Duncan Hunter and the absent Giuliani and McCain. If Fred’s going to run, he’d better enter as soon as possible. The American public are tiring of his “non-official” status. If he avoids the debating process altogether, he’s nothing short of a coward.

I enjoy seeing the field thin out. If we get down to a Giuliani-McCain-Romney-F. Thompson-Huckabee-Brownback-Paul field, things will be much more interesting.

The only thing I think we can take from this is that Romney will prevail in Iowa in January. The fact that he earned virtually double his nearest opponents and the fact that his other major opponents nationwide failed to even show up simply shows that Romney is the frontrunner in the state of Iowa.

Paranoid Presidential Predictions

It seems like everyone’s got a paranoid conspiracy theory about what a candidate will do if they are elected to the Oval Office. So I’m going to throw out some of my own theories on certain candidates:

Barack Obama – If elected President, Barack Obama will meet with Castro, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and Vladimir Putin to draw up a treaty in Cuba known as the Havana Accord, stipulating that each nation cannot retaliate against the other’s attacks. Together, they will team up against Pakistan, assassinate Musharraf, and invade the country. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden will have traveled to Iran on vacation, unbeknownst to everyone but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mitt Romney - Mitt Romney will be the first President of the United States ever sworn in with his hand on something other than the Bible. He will order the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to release the golden tablets that Joseph Smith found from the Mormon vault and swear on those. While the country will in fact be run like a well-oiled business machine, all Mormons will be given tax breaks and “Gentiles” will not. The nation’s capital will also be relocated to Independence, Missouri.

John McCain - He will die of natural causes 3 years into office. His accomplishments will include making President Bush the Ambassador to the United Nations, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and an open border with a large welcome sign on the Arizona border. He will be succeeded by Vice President John Kerry.

Hillary Clinton - She will introduce Hillarycare again, this time successfully due to a Democratic majority in Congress. Major supporters will include Vice President Obama, John Kerry, and Christopher Dodd.  The White House will undergo complete renovation, adding on an obscenely large spa, complete with lipo-suction, botox, and of course, the nation’s largest jacuzzi (shaped like the U.S. mainland).

Rudy Giuliani – While the White House will be turned into a museum, the Oval Office will be relocated to a penthouse at the top of the Liberty Tower in New York City. He will support an amendment to the Constitution allowing for civil unions among homosexual couples in every state. For the State of the Union Address, President Giuliani will dress in drag and no one will be allowed to laugh.

Ron Paul – Deeming the current status of America unconstitutional, President Paul will return America to a Confederacy of loosely-connected states. Federal laws will be more like guidelines, but each individual state will be the final authority. As a result, marijuana will be legalized in 36 states. The FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, the Federal Court System, and the State Department will all be abolished within the first year of his term. When Congress meets, it will be more like a social gathering of philosophers rather than a law-making body.

Mike Huckabee – Speeches from President Huckabee will frequently reference the Andy Griffith Show, which will be shown in every television accross America due to the Wholesome Television Re-Run Act. Although not binding, the state religion will officially become Southern Baptist. Obese Americans will be put on the Presidential diet, resulting in astounding weight loss across America. And the Vice President will be none other than Governor Bob Riley of Alabama.

Fred Thompson - Fred Thompson will have made the official announcement for his candidacy on January 1, 2008, barely edging out Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani for the nomination. Shortly following his inauguration, Fred Thompson would also introduce the Wholesome Television Re-Run Act, except the emphasis would be on Law & Order. The embargo on trade with Cuba will be lifted, resulting in a boost for the American economy due to sales of Cuban cigars. Also, Michael Moore will be labeled an enemy combatant and exiled to France.

John Edwards – All Americans affected by poverty will have the choice of receiving an advanced form of Medicaid or exportation to Europe. Gasoline-powered cars will be outlawed along with any type of oil product, resulting in a greener America although Global Warming will remain relatively unchanged. However, President Edwards will be forced to resign when it is revealed that his haircare products contained a miniscule derivative of crude oil.

Sam Brownback – In a shocking move, President Brownback will announce that his Presidential authority stops at the steps of the Vatican, giving control of America to the Pope. What America had feared with John F. Kennedy will have been realized in President Brownback. Abortion doctors will be executed without trial. Catholic priests will be given the authority to arrest suspected criminals. With President Brownback and Vice President Giuliani, it will be the worst situation of Catholic control over a country since “Bloody Mary” in England. 

Note: This post is purely satirical. If you are offended by it, you probably suffer from lack of a sense of humor. May God have mercy on your soul.
 

Romney Browbeats Brownback

If criticizing Mitt Romney for his Mormon faith wasn’t enough, Sam Brownback has resorted to a poorly-informed smear campaign against the former Massachussetts governor in the state of Iowa.

Last night’s debate displayed the phone ad that Brownback ran. In it, the Brownback campaign claimed that claimed Romney was pro-abortion. Virtually nothing about the ad had anything to do with promoting Brownback as a candidate. Instead, the ad was an attempt to disparage and discredit a fellow Republican candidate.

Romney correctly described the ad as desperate and negative. Note the video as seen on YouTube:

This clearly shows that Brownback’s campaign is not only floundering, it’s grasping at straws to stay alive. The only thing he can do to make himself look better is to take direct aim at Romney, the frontrunner in the state of Iowa.

I personally think it’s pathetic and it contradicts the nature of Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment: “don’t speak ill of your fellow Republicans.” I could understand comparing your own platform to a fellow candidate’s, but this is a flat-out smear campaign against another GOP candidate.

Fortunately, Romney refuted the ad and said that he is “tired of people who are ‘holier than thou’ (i.e. Brownback) because they’ve been pro-life longer than I have.” Later on in the debate, Romney even acknowledged that his greatest mistake was supporting the current law on abortion in his previous campaigns while being personally opposed to it.

We know that you’re down in the polls and low on money, Sam. But do you have to take direct aim at other candidates to try to make yourself look better? Or have you simply given up on promoting who you are as a candidate?

Brownback… more like Brokeback….

Why I Plan to Vote for An Electable Candidate

This may be a controversial post and I’m sure many will disagree with me. But that hasn’t really stopped me before…

I’d like to start out with a quote from Winston Churchill:

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

That sounds completely un-American, doesn’t it? We strongly hold to the ideal of democracy in America. Our nation was founded on that principle. Quite frankly, it truly is the most optimal system. I’d be hard pressed to disagree with it.

But think about the majority of Americans. Think about the things that sway them, the factors that come into play. People look at a candidate’s religion, their family life, their looks, their background, whether or not they have a dog, how big their house is, how much money have, how they made their money, etc. Have you noticed that I haven’t mentioned how they stand on the issues?

Think about the reasons people vote (or don’t vote) for a particular candidate. “I like the way he (or she) looks.” “He seems to have a good family life so I could vote for him.” “I don’t like him because he’s a Mormon.” “I won’t vote for somebody named ‘Obama,’ that sounds Muslim to me.” “I don’t like him because he’s been married three times.” “He cheated on his wife, so I can’t vote for him.” “Well he certainly looks presidential.” “We’re not ready for a female president.” “I think America needs a black president.”

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to deny that this mindless drivel has entered into the political process! There are voters in America that vote based on trivial information rather than where a candidate stands on the issues. Furthermore, some will vote for a candidate of a particular party without questioning the candidate’s stances.

I wonder how many times a voter does not make up their mind who they will vote for until they arrive at their particular polling place.

So many Ron Paul voters, Mike Huckabee voters, and Sam Brownback voters act like I’m crazy because I tell them that their candidate won’t win. They act as if I oppose the issues that their candidate stands for. Oddly enough, I don’t necessarily disagree with thim on the issues! I just know that based on various dynamics and circumstances that we are in, their candidate is unelectable.

It’s not that I necessarily think that the Presidential election is a complete popularity contest. I do believe that some voters have truly researched their candidates and are voting according to their conscience.

But while truly educated voters do exist, there are several more that aren’t. It’s almost as if the candidates have to “trick” the American public into voting for them because honest and logical persuasion is merely an afterthought.

In conclusion, this post is not necessarily an argument against democracy, but rather an argument for an American public that will truly research its candidates based on ideology and principle rather than personality and popularity. I want Americans to see through the smokescreen of trivial circumstances and examine the candidates based on their stances. Until that is achieved, Churchill is making one heck of an argument against democracy.

Romney Further Reinforces My Support

It’s odd, but every once in a while, a politician will say what I’m thinking. And I like that in a politician. Things like that make me want to vote for them.

For instance, Mitt Romney has recently made some statements that I whole-heartedly agree with.

When it comes to immigration, Mitt said “We should put in place an employment verification system…and then, when an employer is thinking of hiring someone, the federal database immediately tells them whether they’re available to be working or not. If they’re not, you can’t hire them.”

Either Mitt Romney is stealing my ideas or we’re on the same page!

When it comes to universal healthcare, I’d say that Romney and I also see eye to eye: “The last thing I want is the guys managing the Katrina cleanup managing my health care system,” he said.

From a small government perspective, Romney also advocated a similar stance to my own when he said, “There is such duplication in Washington that you’d really like to take the place apart and put it back together, just smaller and simpler and smarter.” What a wonderful idea!

President Bush, as much as I generally like him, has failed in all 3 of these areas. I found his support of the failed McCain-Kennedy immigration bill to be extremely dismal. Like most Republicans, healthcare is virtually a non-issue to him. And regardless of the conservative credentials he claimed early in his presidency, he has not been a “small government conservative.” Romney will fill in the gaps that Bush leaves behind and that’s what I like about him. 

Throughout his career, Mitt Romney has streamlined nearly every organization he has been in control of. He has been successful in balancing budgets, keeping taxes low, introducing a new healthcare system, and reducing waste. America needs that kind of leadership now more than ever.

So I’m still planning on voting for Romney. I still maintain that he is the best winnable conservative candidate in the race. When February of next year rolls around, we’ll see whether I’m right or not.

Attention America! Liberals want their Media back!

It can be returned to the National Lost & Found c/o a Democrat-controlled Congress.

I know I sound like a fear-mongering conservative, but you’ll just have to forgive me. All too often it seems that Republicans are being referred to as the ones that support a “1984″ infrastructure where the government is wire-tapping every phone and “Big Brother” is always watching. But could it be that their opponents, the Democrats, are also guilty of advocating similar measures?

I’ll start off by saying that in some ways, I favor censorship. There are just some things that don’t need to be in the mainstream media. I’m talking about foul and explicit language, nudity, extremely graphic violence, etc. You may or may not disagree with that. It doesn’t matter to me. I just wanted to get that out of the way.

Rumors have been flying recently that liberals are interested in dismantling conservative talk radio and even Fox News. That all sounded like hearsay and conjecture to me until I found out some startling information:

DNC Chairman Howard Dean has recently been quoted as saying that “we need to re-regulate the media.” What an interesting idea you have there, Howard. I wonder how you’d plan to do it.

The weapon of choice: the Fairness Doctrine.

It sounds so great, doesn’t it? Fairness. That means it’s fair, right? The idea behind it is that all forms of news media will be regulated to allow equal time for opposing points of view. In theory, that’s not necessarily a bad plan. But which side do you think has more capability of presenting their side of the story? My guess would be the liberal side.

Let’s shed a little more light on the subject. Take a look at how President Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Commerce Bill Ruder viewed the Fairness Doctrine: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” Keep in mind, Ruder was operating with a Democratic President, a Democratic-controlled Congress, and a progressive Supreme Court.

Could that happen again? Surely not! But let’s look at what other Democrats are saying:

When questioned about a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Dianne Feinstein said “Well, I’m looking at it…because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.”

John Kerry recently said, “I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there… conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye.”

Liberal members of Congress such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Maurice Hinchey, Louise Slaughter, and Dick Durbin have also voiced support for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

But in case the Fairness Doctrine falls through, you can always take the same route that MoveOn.Org and the DailyKos are taking: tell everyone to boycott conservative media. They’ve already been successful in urging Democratic candidates not to debate on Fox News channel. However, they have failed thus far in discouraging Home Depot from advertising on Fox.

Of course, they could always be honest and try starting a liberal network of their own. Wait a second. Didn’t that already happen? Oh yes, AirAmerica. How is that doing nowadays? Didn’t it go bankrupt?

Americans will get their news from where they choose to. Some choose not to use television, and that’s fine. Some prefer the internet above all. That doesn’t bother me either. I personally choose to get my news from different sources including television, the internet, and sometimes even radio. Frankly, I typically go to Fox News first when it comes to television. But I won’t refuse to look at other sources like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, or wherever. When I want news from the internet, I might just type something in a search engine like Yahoo or Google (whatever I’m in the mood for).

Regulation of mainstream media through the Fairness Doctrine or any method that denies Americans the right to choose their source of media is completely anti-capitalist. It’s just one more way that liberals across America can rear their socialistic heads.