Presidential candidates, debates, and God
“Freedom requires religion.”
- Mitt Romney, the GOP winner in Michigan and Wyoming
“...what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards..."
- Mike Huckabee, the GOP winner in Iowa
Whatever you think about the top three Democratic candidates, none of them is pandering to Christian fundamentalists like this. And the way Romney and Huckabee are talking, it's pretty clear that trampling the Constitution on their way to power is a perfectly legitimate goal in their goose-step to the presidency.
Which means, of course, continuing the policies of the Bush administration. Merge church and state? Sure! Spy on you? You bet. Prolong an illegal, immoral occupation? Yup. The only one who truly believes in the Constitution, getting out of Iraq, and has at least a veneer of sanity is Ron Paul.
But even that veneer is pretty thin. He'd like to do away with the Internal Revenue Service, impose a (regressive) "flat tax", and give corporations even more leeway to increase their stranglehold on America. He's a libertarian with fangs.
Watching the Democratic debates last night (with the fiasco of the Michigan primaries taking place in the background), I found myself grumbling over at least one response per candidate that I didn't fully agree with.
And I was still fuming over MSNBC's decision to exclude Dennis Kucinich from the debate, a la the Des Moines Register. But that's another rant entirely.
Still, after watching a rather collegial, lucid debate — despite Tim Russert's deservedly heckled attempts to dredge up a race or sex-based sparring match — I was cheered up by the Michigan primary results on the Republican side: Rudy Giuliani's dismal performance (again), the non-effect of Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter, and the two quotes that opened this post.
I might grumble that any of the Democratic candidates aren't progressive enough or didn't vote as expected on a particular matter of importance, but at the very least, I wouldn't be ashamed to say about any of them: Yeah, that's my president. Right now, I can't say that about any of the string of sycophants in Neocon Land, including the current occupant of the White House.
- Mitt Romney, the GOP winner in Michigan and Wyoming
“...what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards..."
- Mike Huckabee, the GOP winner in Iowa
Whatever you think about the top three Democratic candidates, none of them is pandering to Christian fundamentalists like this. And the way Romney and Huckabee are talking, it's pretty clear that trampling the Constitution on their way to power is a perfectly legitimate goal in their goose-step to the presidency.
Which means, of course, continuing the policies of the Bush administration. Merge church and state? Sure! Spy on you? You bet. Prolong an illegal, immoral occupation? Yup. The only one who truly believes in the Constitution, getting out of Iraq, and has at least a veneer of sanity is Ron Paul.
But even that veneer is pretty thin. He'd like to do away with the Internal Revenue Service, impose a (regressive) "flat tax", and give corporations even more leeway to increase their stranglehold on America. He's a libertarian with fangs.
Watching the Democratic debates last night (with the fiasco of the Michigan primaries taking place in the background), I found myself grumbling over at least one response per candidate that I didn't fully agree with.
And I was still fuming over MSNBC's decision to exclude Dennis Kucinich from the debate, a la the Des Moines Register. But that's another rant entirely.
Still, after watching a rather collegial, lucid debate — despite Tim Russert's deservedly heckled attempts to dredge up a race or sex-based sparring match — I was cheered up by the Michigan primary results on the Republican side: Rudy Giuliani's dismal performance (again), the non-effect of Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter, and the two quotes that opened this post.
I might grumble that any of the Democratic candidates aren't progressive enough or didn't vote as expected on a particular matter of importance, but at the very least, I wouldn't be ashamed to say about any of them: Yeah, that's my president. Right now, I can't say that about any of the string of sycophants in Neocon Land, including the current occupant of the White House.
# Posted by Keith : 6:45 PM
Comments:
Your comments about Ron Paul are absurd. Have you ever really looked at his positions? He is not for a flat tax. He want's (as did the founders) small, very focused, constitutionally authorized federal government. As such the rest of the powers to the states and the people.
And he wants to do away with one the largest corporations there is, the federal reserve.
Ron Paul is for a flat tax, jroddick:
Huckabee and Mr. Paul have both positioned themselves as outsiders unbeholden to the powers in their own party. Elimination of the income and payroll taxes, and their replacement with a national retail "Fair Tax," would be a radical step, say experts.
Some economists have long held that a national sales tax would be a more economically efficient way of financing US activities. It would encourage savings, and discourage spending, for instance. It would eliminate deductions that skew the tax code.
But other economists point out that some of those deductions, such as the one for interest paid on home mortgages, are enormously popular. Sales taxes are regressive – that is, they affect the poor, who must spend a higher percentage of their income to live, more than the rich.
Ron Paul is a libetarian who wants to do away with government protections and regulations that protect us, the people of this country. That's a bad move.
And the Federal Reserve? That's a public corporation. Keith was talking about private ones.
Post a Comment