He is a real contender?

I made a prediction a little while back on Facebook that Ron Paul just couldn't do it; that he wasn't a real contender. I was surprised at the flurry of responses I received letting me know that I was crazy and of course he's a real contender.


I'm reading all the posts and tweets and seeing lots of support for Ron Paul. Even when he was questioned by a reporter about articles that he either did or didn't see - but seems he did make money from - many of my FB friends rallied for him in a big way. I even saw several YouTube videos saying terrible things about the reporter and calling her a "media whore".


Even with the recent numbers he's getting and all the support I'm seeing; I'm still on the fence. I'm looking at this thing from the point-of-view of a general election and I honestly think the dynamics are different enough that he could never go up against the Obama machine.


Dig into how Obama won the election and watch the various YouTube videos questioning Obama voters about things he said and it becomes clear that they just weren't listening. It was simply a huge and very well targeted marketing campaign; likely one of the best ever put forth by a presidential campaign.


I mean seriously people; what did he do with he life previous to becoming President that made him a great candidate to lead us? Absolutely nothing!


Now, think about Ron Paul going up against a well played pop-culture marketing campaign. Do you really think he can pull it off and make it happen? I just don't. I'm going to be honest now and some of you won't like this. If you look at him - don't listen to him - just look at him; what comes to mind, what do you see?


Honestly, I see an old southern politician that would stand up for slavery and say it's a great thing. Is that fair? Is that Him? NO!! It's obvious that's not him. However, if people voted for Obama without listening to him; how do you think people are going to vote this time? It's a pop-culture era people and much of the voting public does so from an emotional place; not one of intellect.


Really, the only thing leading us out of this black-hole of popular-ism is the tea party and those finally willing to stand up and say enough-is-enough! I just don't think we have enough support to put someone like Paul through in the general election; not yet.


That's just me; what do you think?

Some Disturbing Changes - By Contributor Val

Politics seem to be a topic that many hesitate to broach due to it's volatile nature, especially in the current climate of economic meltdown and uncertainty.  My husband and I - during our 40 years of marriage - have been mildly interested in politics, however, it was not until 2008 that our interest piqued.  

We began watching the news and listening to radio commentaries; including both liberal and conservative programs.  We also had some heated "discussions" with each other and others during the campaign.  For the most part, discussions remained civil and friendly even when platforms were diametrically opposed.  It was OK to stand for individual beliefs.

As this campaign season has gotten underway, I see a couple of changes that disturb me.   One is the montra "both parties are the same...one is just as bad as the other". I agree that there are men and women in both (all) parties who might have less than honorable intentions.  However, each party has a different platform, with different beliefs as to how  this country should be run.  

It seems to me that trying to meld them into one size fits all - i.e., both are the same - is a very dangerous generality.  It (in my opinion) muddies the differences instead of embracing them.  Could it be that if they are all the same we don't have to stand for anything?

The other change is the intensity of personal attacks.  I am shocked at the hateful and demeaning dialogue I hear just about every day of the week on the news from the President to the political pundits to rants on Facebook!  It's about policies not personalities...sheesh!  

Two people come to mind...one a liberal Democrat and the other a right wing Conservative...James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin.  James who In 1992,  helped lead Bill Clinton to a win against George H. W. Bush in the Presidential election and In 1993, Carville was honored as Campaign Manager of the Year by the American Association of Political Consultants.  Mary a Republican political pundit, who worked for President George H. W. Bush on his 1992 reelection campaign.  

I loved watching them go at each other in very heated and  animated discussions, then when it was over they would talk about their kids, look at each other lovingly and sometimes they would even give each other a little kiss at the end of the segment.  They did it right... I think we can learn from them... http://youtu.be/LGL6eaIe3kM.

Your thoughts?

The Candidates go head-to-head; well, not really

Held at the First Federated Church in Des Moines this debate felt more like a discussion among friends filled with plenty of emotional stories and talk of liberty and the direction of our nation. For the most part, I had a hard time seeing any real differences between the candidates - even the moderator mentioned how closely tied they all seemed to be. It seemed to me that the only candidate pushing to be seen as different was Santorum as he stated several times during the discussion – yes, I’m calling it a discussion – “here’s the difference between me and everyone else here”.

Even with Santorum’s pleas to be different it still seemed the candidates were very much on the same page on subjects that ranged from personal responsibility to morally justified war and several others. Of course, this being a church setting and a family focused discussion many of the topics covered were moral ones and each candidate even shared when they came to know God.

As the discussion of morality came to the question of personal responsibility in America; Cane adamantly answered “Freedom without responsibility is immoral” and was followed up by Perry’s exhortation that “there is only moral and immoral” stating that there is no neutral. Newt expanded on this topic by telling a story of the occupy Wallstreet crowd as they occupied a park they did not own and used bathrooms they did not pay for; while asking retailers to give them food that they did not want to purchase – all the while not considering that those retailers were paying the taxes for the very park and bathrooms the occupy crowd were using. In closing, Newt urged them to “Go get a job right after you take a bath”.

In the discussion on morally justified war I did start to see the candidates break away from each other. While they all seemed to be saying the same thing it became clear the difference in reasoning the candidates would use to determine why the U.S. should go to war.

Ron Paul came from a place of law and constitutionalism in denouncing every war since WW2 stating that they have all been “Illegal”. Cane – on the other hand - came from a place of pure patriotism in stating “The defense of freedom and the defense of liberty is the moral justification”. While he did not explain whether this meant the defense of those concepts specifically for our nation or for other nations; I certainly got the sense that his heart-felt response was directed to our nation. He went on to say “I will not send them into war unless I would send my own son or daughter.”

I was less enthused by Bachmann’s weak response that “I have to be convinced” and “there has to be a clearly defined interest” as these sentiments seemed much too broad and in my opinion not answers at all. Gingrich pulled the final and rousing applause on this subject by emphasized that “We frankly couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks; we’re going to get it done” in speaking of the possibility of militarily resolving issues in Iran.

All-in-all I think it was a great discussion and it’s very clear to me that the candidates are running on a platform of providing the people with a government that holds itself to a higher moral standard while also limiting its power and oversight – giving states more control as was originally intended by our founders. While republicans have always been the party of less government it’s clear that this group of candidates is bringing that concept to the forefront of their campaigns. Dare I say – it’s about time.

Have a different take on the debate or thoughts related to my post? Well – speak up then; I always welcome open discussion and input from different perspectives. 

Intro.

It is truly time for us to come together and decide that we want a better future for our ourselves and our children. I have spent a life-time sitting on the sidelines and thinking it was enough to cast my vote very four years. It's easy to see that is no longer enough; we must stand up and become part of the solution if we truly care about the change we have been talking about for so long.


Day by day it becomes obvious to me that so many of my American family members are choosing to leave the sidelines and get involved in some way to re-establish this great country and everything it – we – stand for. This blog will serve as a voice to those that wish to be heard and a resource for those that wish to learn. With so much information out there I hope to provide a place that can serve as a central resource.


Keep coming back.