Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Wade Heath Why I find Ron Paul to be an exciting candidate

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Wade Heath

Posted: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 5:57 am, Wed Jan 25, 2012.

Since last we met, a lot has changed in the GOP presidential race. For one, the very left-leaning Jon Huntsman has "suspended" his campaign, thus thinning the herd even more. Two more debates have taken place, bringing the total to 4,291 or so, I've lost count. And the coolest man alive, President Barack Obama, is suddenly taking a "small government" stance, calling for more power to help minimize the effect bloated government has.

Just a reminder: That cool fella in charge happened to be one of the foremost expanders of big-government spending and bureaucracy up until a second ago, when he realized it was no longer sexy to admit it. In an election year where so many no longer drink the hopey, changey Kool-Aid, jumping from one extreme to another is, as I see it, a desperate attempt to attract support.

But another thing happened. Three of the four candidates have now won the support of a state.

If I seemed a little underwhelmed at the idea of talking about the GOP candidates last time, it's because I was. I think I speak for a lot of concerned Americans when I say that we're tired of settling — settling for someone who sorta gets what the problems are, who we can sorta relate to or who can sorta be trusted.

After decades of self-destructive government and progressive agendas, another establishment politician will not do. I think that's why Texas Congressman Ron Paul is so exciting to young people. He is not part of the Republican establishment; on the contrary, Paul is a hardcore libertarian who speaks like a Founding Father in many instances.

He wants to secure the border, remove restrictions on drilling for oil domestically, eliminate the gasoline tax, end the federal role in education, defund more than half of the federal government (including the IRS) and turn more power over to states. But most importantly, he would disband the Federal Reserve.

Someone like a Ron Paul is desperately needed to knock Washington on its rear (back where it belongs) and take a machete to the red tape and Constitution-violating excess that currently exists. That much is true.

And while Paul is incredibly appealing in terms of freedom, liberty and slashing government, he scares the dickens out of an otherwise appreciative voter base with his stances on foreign policy and drugs. If he would change his views on those two concepts, we might see Paul in the lead by a substantial margin. But knowing his level of consistency on preaching these ideas doesn't make anyone comfortable.

Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, has been quite the soundbite pleaser at the debates, but his sketchy past and his flip-flopping positions over time makes one wonder where his loyalty lies. He has made it clear that President Obama is enemy No. 1, but Newt himself called for Obama to use troops to intervene in Libya, then when he did, condemned him and the very action.

Newt supports legalizing illegal immigrants who've planted themselves in America and lived lawfully. He supports extending and reinforcing the Patriot Act as well as the Obama administration's $4 billion Race to the Top education grant program for states.

Do you think he really wants the White House? I get the underlying feeling that this is really about him and less about the country. Regardless, I'd still love to see him in a debate against Obama.

Sen. Rick Santorum: How about them sweater vests? Only kidding. Rick has risen from obscurity on the campaign trail and made his own waves. He calls himself the only real conservative in the group. Santorum opposed the financial industry bailout under both Bush and Obama, and he has called for a zero corporate tax to help jumpstart the economic and initiative engine in this country. He also opposes any national sales tax. Open up more land for drilling, he says, reducing what he calls "oppressive regulation" restraining domestic oil production. He wants to secure America's borders and ensure that illegal immigrants never receive education benefits just for being here.

And yes, his stance on gay marriage is extremely controversial — except that every other candidate running besides Ron Paul (who wants to defer the ruling to the state level) has the exact same stance Santorum does, banning gay marriage by route of a constitutional amendment.

But his petty, whiny attitude is immensely unappealing, and he has had trouble holding his own around the others lately.

Clearly, I haven't glossed over Mitt Romney in this listing. Don't worry, he's worth a whole lot more space than I have today since he is clearly the hotness with that perfect hairdo and strapping young family. More on Romney next column.

Columnist Wade Heath was born and raised in Lodi. Contact him at wade.lodi@gmail. com.

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

13 comments:

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:54 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Kinderman,
    With 95% reporting, Ron Paul has over 36% of the vote in Maine right behind first place finisher Mitt Romney, who has barely 39%.

    But when all the votes are counted will Romney still be in first place? Only 194 votes stand between Paul and a first place victory. Washington County is a stronghold for Paul and has yet to report. It might be a week before we know the final outcome there and Washington County is expected to yield 200 votes or more.

    Are you still confused?

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:53 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2345

    Mr. Liebich was quite correct regarding the delegate count in Florida as this just in: "With polls closed in Florida, Fox News projects Mitt Romney takes all 50 of Florida's Republican delegates while Newt Gingrich is projected to finish a distant second, with Rick Santorum in third and Ron Paul in fourth." (http://tinyurl.com/6rxtt3e}

    Of course I'm still a little confused as to how any of this could be good for Ron Paul. But the campaign trail is still barely warm, so we'll simply have to wait and see what transpires.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:33 pm on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    If Gingrich and Santorum finish behind Romney in Florida, as polls currently indicate they will, neither of them will win any delegates. Nada. Zip.

    Ron Paul only had to score one more delegate in Maine last weekend to outperform them, convention-wise. Given that Maine Republicans tend to be more libertarian than socially conservative, and given that Paul actually campaigned there, that's a likely occurrence.

    I would say the stategy worked just fine.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:15 pm on Sun, Jan 29, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2345

    "A new NBC/Marist poll shows Romney up 15 over Gingrich in Florida, 42 percent to 27 percent. Rick Santorum is third with 16 percent, followed by Ron Paul with 11 percent. Four percent said they are undecided." (http://tinyurl.com/6ontcth)

    That's a factoid hard to deal with for Ron Paul fans. But could it be that because "Paul, the Texas congressman, ... [who] invested little in the Florida race ... is looking ahead to Nevada, ... to benefit from the grassroots impact of caucuses?" (Ibid.)

    I wonder how that strategy will work for him.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:59 am on Sun, Jan 29, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2345

    In support of the fact that Ron Paul is "not electable," why is it then that he has fallen behind in the Florida primary just 48 hours before the votes are tallied? Like it or not, we have two major political parties. History has shown that when a contender for the Republican ticket is defeated during the primaries (as Mr. Paul is trying to win by the way) and then attempt to run as an "independent" candidate thereby forming a third party for the general election, the Democrat nominee wins.

    As for emotions not being a match for facts, I submit that is simply not true. Emotions play a very important role in politics - even beyond any so-call facts. In fact, the Ron Paul-ites are much more prone to using their feelings than any other group. But they do so in a way that drives people away from whatever message Paul might be trying to deliver. What this reveals to me is that they know their candidate is not a leader; but instead of trying to do what he cannot do, they follow his lead. (Yeah, try and understand that one.)

    We need a LEADER to defeat Barack Obama. Why? Because the majority of those who will vote for him in November don't care at ALL about facts, the economy, wars, the environment or anything else that they pretend are so important; because if they did, they wouldn't have elected him in the first place.

    Once the current crop of Republican contenders hit the stages for their onslaught of debates, it grew apparent that Obama will get his four more years. And while we're only at the end of January and the election is a whole nine months away where anything can happen, nothing of real significance will occur unless it's really REALLY big. We've had over three years of unbelievable nonsense and destruction from this current president. But the people don't care. Nope - they're going to cast more votes for Obama than anyone else simply because they "feel" like he really does need additional time to transform the United States of America. And at this point there's absolutely nothing that we or even Ron Paul can do about it.

    And that’s a fact.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:40 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Do the facts support Mr. Kinderman's claims? Of course not, but facts are no match for emotions. With that said, here is my "militant reaction" to Mr. Kinderman's claims that Ron Paul is not electable.

    Whether you agree with Ron Paul’s political views or not, whether you think he should be the Republican Party’s nominee or not, his actual electability as a presidential candidate is an entirely separate question – one that can be answered by investigating the facts instead of merely repeating the same opinion ad nauseam and hoping it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    As is consistently attested by poll results and even the Republican Party’s most recent primary votes in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the facts are these: Ron Paul performs better among independents than any other Republican candidate for the presidential nomination. He also performs better among young voters under 30 than any other Republican. Ron Paul also outperforms any of the remaining Republican candidates among Democrats, liberals, moderates, and low-income voters. When Ron Paul is matched up against Obama, he has polled as well as, if not even better than the other three remaining candidates.

    During this weeks NBC hosted GOP debate in Florida, Ron Paul was once again ignored and dismissed. Paul spoke for less than 6 minutes out of the hour long debate. He was skipped over completely on three questions when everyone else got to speak, and was not offered the chance to respond to several attacks on his policies from the other candidates. Why?

    This is why... http://youtu.be/MTx95Y5ZxEs

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:34 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2345

    No matter how one "dresses up" Ron Paul, he is simply not electable. That's the sad story but absolutely true.

    What haven’t helped over the past few years have been his most avid “fans” - more often than not when confronting those who believe as I do about their guy, their militant reactions only prove my point.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:40 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    If anyone out there actually believes that things will be much different if one of these “establishment candidates” is elected in 2012, they are seriously deluded.

    The reality is that not much changed when Barack Obama took over for George W. Bush. And not much will change if one of the “top tier” Republican candidates takes over for Barack Obama.

    The American people keep sending new faces to Washington D.C., but they keep on getting the same results over and over and over.

    It is time to wake up and realize that these “establishment politicians” are leading this country straight down the toilet.

    Explain how a sincere Republican can ignore Ron Paul and support any of the phony status quo clones for the nomination?

    The straightforward explanation is that the average GOP voter is just as dumb as a Democrat supporter.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:39 am on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2345

    While I find none of the Republican presidential contenders even remotely "exciting," there's no doubt in my mind that Obama must be defeated. This election will most definitely come down to the lesser of two evils.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:50 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mahmoud stated...Paul or NOTHING!!!

    I guess its nothing then... since Ron Paul is not runnng to win and has no intention of being president...

    I read your post and thought you were ... a silly kid...


     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:14 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Has ric flair resurfaced as Mahmoud A?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:17 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Ron Paul's 2002 Predictions All Came True... http://youtu.be/MTx95Y5ZxEs

    The more support Ron Paul gets the more the hypocrites sound like him. Now Newt's even calling for a Commission on Gold... LOL

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:58 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Wade stated...He is not part of the Republican establishment; on the contrary, Paul is a hardcore libertarian

    Great observation Wade... considering a candidate that the Republican Establishment is against is a good first start at this point in time. That is Why Gingrich should also be considered. The Republican Establishment is more afraid of Him than Paul. They know that Paul is 77 years old and will turn 81 before the next election. They also know that Paul is not interested in winning the presidency but in garnering influence to effect policy in whoever wins the election.
    Gingrich on the other hand is a true conservative that thinks outside the box and is a proven leader which was evidenced in leading the Republican Party to power in 1992, spearheaded welfare reform and a booming economy.

    In 1980, when Ronald Reagan started the year about 30 points behind Jimmy Carter and when the Republican establishment described his economic ideas as "voodoo economics," Reagan just cheerfully went out and won the debate, won the nomination, and won the general election. Just as Ronald Reagan was opposed by the Establishment, so is Gingrich and Paul... The difference is that Gingrich can win it and Paul cannot and does not want to win.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 8 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: We should not look to governmen…

Mr Mork - do you have a real and true understand of the benefits to avail the unemploy in United States? You comments say a big no. May y…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Semi-truck hauling grapes overturns at …

Big rigs taking off ramps to fast equals ---- what else but an over turned big rig, plus a driver looking for another job. Slow down and a…

More...

Posted 9 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Letter: Thanks for the discussion on th…

M. I posted this down below but it may be buried in all the since comments. I showed your response on a biker page and the unanimous res…

More...

Posted 9 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Letter: Thanks for the discussion on th…

I showed your response on a biker page and the unanimous response was that you may have rode a bike, but most assuredly did NOT get it. A …

More...

Posted 10 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: We should not look to governmen…

Thanks Jien you do clear things up in regards to Darrell and his utopian view of the East.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists