[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Republicans on repeat—except for Ron Paul Republicans on repeat—except for Ron Paul by LYDIA HOWELL Watching the Republicans debate was much like a flat repetition of Bushspeak—while avoiding Bush's name. But, at least, there was a lot less of the Reagan incantation from the first debate. On most issues, nine of the 10 Republicans seemed redundant to what we've already got now. They agreed on more militarism, continued Bush's tax cuts for the rich and “free market” health care--none of which is working now. Plus, these nine are in love with nukes—nuking Iran, nuclear power in response to global warming and energy independence. VP Dick Cheney's right-hand man, L. Scooter Libby (who just got 30 months for perjury), could look forward to being pardoned--if Bush doesn't do so on his way out. Only immigration seemed to divide the candidates from the Militarism ’R’ Us redundancy. Of course, Iraq was the key issue and only one Republican stood out opposing the madness: Ron Paul. A congressman from Texas, who's actually a Libertarian, Paul was fiery in his denunciation of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. When candidates were asked, "What's the most pressing moral issue the country faces?" Paul answered, "We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to the aid of somebody. But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war—we have rejected the Just War theory of Christianity. We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights,” Proclaimed front-runners Arizona Senator John McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani differed only in style, but their substance on Iraq was the same. McCain's “stay the course” was quietly made with flourishes from his own military service and Giuliani practically foamed at the mouth while fearmongering on the “terrorist threat”--though at least his handlers had advised him to stop saying 9/11 every other sentence. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney may no longer have to defend being a Mormon, but he came across as a stiff with little new to offer. The “second-tier” candidates, with the exception of Paul, ranged from blandly forgettable to ferociously belligerent. Attaining bland belligerence, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is an unknown to fear. His claim to fame on his website is as chairman of the Gilmore Commission, which made recommendations to Congress on post-9/11 security. Currently Gilmore is chairman of the National Council on Readiness and Preparedness (NCORP), which aims to “establish public/private partnerships that help strengthen America’s homeland security. Jim Gilmore also serves as president of USA Secure, a nonprofit homeland security think tank that works to strengthen and coordinate communication between the government, especially the Department of Homeland Security, private industry, first responders, national security think tanks and universities.” In my view, Gilmore represents a further threat to Americans' civil liberties. Since common sense security measures haven't been implemented (like checking imported cargo), I wonder how much more corporate pork under the guise of “national security” will result from Gilmore's “public/private partnerships.” Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thomson was creepily incoherent, though he made one surprising stand: Tell the Iraqi Parliament to vote on whether the U.S. troops should stay or go—and abide by that vote. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, most known as a virulent member of the Religious Right put forth a different solution in Iraq--a three-state nation with Baghdad as the federal capital with oil revenues shared equally between the three states and payments for every Iraqi (like Alaskans get). California Representative Duncan Hunter, who until Democrats took the majority in January was chair of the Armed Services Committee, saw only a military solution to everything from Iraq (beef up the Iraqi army and have them take over from U.S. troops) to Iran (nuke ’em) to militarizing the U.S.-Mexico border. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee had the warmest personality of the Republicans and took a page from Jim Wallis, founder of the progressive Evangelical organization Sojourners, when he noted that the pro-life position had been too narrowly drawn to “only care about lives in the womb. It's equally important to care about the child sleeping under a bridge ... the elder being abused in a nursing home. Huckabee's solution to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq was simply stated--“toughen up the Iraqi Army.” All the candidates support keeping Bill Clinton's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy about gay and lesbian soldiers in the military. Ron Paul's position was contradicted in that he said the policy is “decent” while also saying sexual orientation wasn't the issue: “... every individual should be treated the same way. If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.” The real fireworks came with discussing immigration and the Senate's McCain-Kennedy bill. All alone, McCain doggedly defended his bill, while fellow front-runner Giuliani dismissed the bill as “the typical Washington compromise” that failed on national security. You have to hand it to Giuliani that he read the 400-plus pages of McCain's bill and stayed on message (“national security” related to almost every issue). He opposed McCain's bill saying immigration reform demanded a “uniform data system” and seemed to support a national ID. Like Gilmore, I'd seriously worry about our civil liberties with “America's Mayor” in the White House. Romney and Brownback strongly called for “enforcement of existing laws," opposed the Z visas that would be granted within 24 hours of immigrants' application—even without criminal background checks being completed. There were plenty of outraged supporters for an 800-plus-mile “security fence” at the U.S.-Mexico border. Hunter is making the fence a signature issue and Paul voted for it. Colorado Representative Tom Tencredo is running almost totally on immigration, capitalizing on his alliance with the Minutemen border vigilantes. Drawing on a long history of American xenophobia, he railed that McCain's bill was “disastrous” and that failure to pass English-only laws would “destroy the nation.” In short, Tencredo is a one-trick pony that sounds like a John Birch Society nut. But, Ron Paul, along with the other candidates, simply had a softer version of the same position, rejecting any pathway for undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship. The strangest moment in the debate was raising the question of evolution, with various theocratic responses from the candidates, including a somewhat touching one from Huckabee, who's also a minister. Paul made a strong stand for the separation of church and state—although that view is contradicted by Paul's opposition to reproductive rights, saying that “Roe v. Wade is a mess” and states should decide abortion laws. Giuliani will get the most media for his lightning-interrupted explanation of his personal opposition to abortion while as an elected official, upholding women's right to choose. The candidates attempted to “make conservation a conservative issue” and offer that Republicans can address global warming. Don't fall for it: Their positions were the same old support for coal and nuclear power plants, keeping us where we already are. McCain seemed to often drift in his replies, momentarily reviving for a strong finish. Trying to out-Bush Bush, Giuliani was unpleasantly aggressive. I predict Romney didn't make enough of an impression to stay in the race for long. In terms of "second-tier" candidates, the Republicans aren't nearly as interesting as the Democrats, with one exception: Ron Paul. Fifty-two percent of CNN viewers voted that Ron Paul won the debate, though CNN quickly pulled the poll from their website. Afterward, CNN pundits avoided even mentioning Paul—except to call him a nut--consistent with Corporate Media's arrogance at deciding who's worthy for voters to even hear. While I've grown skeptical about most Democrats, it's clear you should only vote for Republicans if you like the direction the country has been going. Paul would get us out of Iraq and he'd restore some of our civil liberties, but otherwise it would be business as usual for ordinary Americans--sink or swim on your own. www.cnn/election.com
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
CNN also pulled all the great comments about Ron Paul from their website. "VANISHED" CNN COMMENTS ON RON PAUL IN THE DEBATE "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Huh? By getting us back to minding our own business, shutting down most of fedgov, we'd certainly have a much better chance of swimming, rather than sinking, under Dr.Paul's Constitutional approach to governance.
By getting us back to minding our own business, shutting down most of fedgov, we'd certainly have a much better chance of swimming, rather than sinking, under Dr.Paul's Constitutional approach to governance. I totally agree with you there. Perhaps unleash a house cleaning everywhere, and unleash a newly installed DOJ, to restore accountability. And FIRE a few hundred thousand unneeded, inappropriately federalized 'employees'. To start.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||