Archive for the Running for President Category

One More Thing from the Debate

Posted in First Amendment, Government, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Politics, Running for President with tags , , , , , , , , on October 5, 2012 by Xajow

At the end of President Obama’s opening statement at the debate on Wednesday night, the President said something that deserves ridicule should be further examined. Don’t worry. I will try to be brief. Continue reading

Some Notes About the Debate

Posted in Government, In the News, Philosophy, Politics, Running for President with tags , , , , , , , , on October 4, 2012 by Xajow

Last night was the first debate (transcript link) between candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. Only the most diehard Obama fans believe he won the debate. And today I have the entertainment of watching a number of left-wing talking heads trying to to appear to not be in a panic mode brought on by Obama’s clear loss at the debate. Continue reading

More Annoying Political Comments

Posted in Deregulation, Economics, Fairness, Government, In the News, Patriotism, Politics, Propaganda, Running for President, Taxes with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on September 5, 2012 by Xajow

I really should be leaving this stuff alone, but certain things just irk me. This time, it is a quote from the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Cory Booker. Continue reading

Does the Government Own You?

Posted in Government, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Politics, Rant, Running for President with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 4, 2012 by Xajow

I am going to use a short video that apparently comes from the DNC, but do not think I intend to criticize just Democrats. Both Democrat and Republican political leadership are equally guilty of the attitude I am going to mention. Continue reading

Mitt Romney’s Taxes

Posted in Government, In the News, Philosophy, Politics, Running for President, Taxes with tags , , , , , , , , on August 6, 2012 by Xajow

Yes, I am going to talk politics again. This time about the news story of comments by Harry Reid about Mitt Romney’s taxes. Continue reading

Don’t Encourage Them

Posted in Government, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Running for President with tags , , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2012 by Xajow

I am starting to see and hear the “don’t vote for _____ because you’ll just help _____ win” nonsense once again. This happens every election cycle. Do not fall for this reasoning.

If you vote, then vote for the person you believe will be the best person for the job.

There is an argument to be made against voting. It is often summed up by a old joke about a woman who was asked if she voted, and she replied “No. It just encourages them.” Oh I know, arguing against voting is supposed to be horrible. “If you don’t vote,” I have been told, “then you have no right to complain.” That is hogwash. Wait, let me explain.

People who vote for this or that candidate because they do not want this or that candidate to win are the folks who have no right to complain. The people who vote for this or that candidate because so-and-so cannot win are the folks who have no right to complain. What do I mean? I mean that supporting the status quo that has gotten us into this mess means you’re part of the problem not part of the solution. The people trying to find a better way, the people who want to vote for the candidate who will change things, the people who believe that voting is just giving support to a broken system, those are the people with a right to complain.

I will never tell anyone to not vote. I say you have to decide for yourself. If the candidate you like is not the Repocrat or Demublican nominee, you are not wasting a vote to vote for the candidate you prefer. If all the people who say “I really like this guy, but he can’t win” would vote for the person they really like anyway, it would change the political landscape.

Some people tell me I am supposed to choose between the lesser of two evils. As has been pointed out many times, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Why would I want to vote for that? Why should I sacrifice my convictions and my morals to support something evil merely because someone else deems it a lesser evil? No. I refuse. To put this another way, if the person who takes the office is little different from the person who is voted out, nothing has truly changed. And that would mean I had wasted my vote.

So while I say “do not encourage them,” I am not saying do not vote. I am saying if you vote, do not pick an “evil” candidate. If you vote, then vote like you care about who your leader is, not just about getting/keeping that other guy out of office. I am saying if you vote, then vote as if your morals and your principles actually matter to you. If you do that, then you will never waste your vote. The people who tell you otherwise are generally the same people who voted over and over for the schmucks politicians who got us into this mess, so you probably should not be taking their political advice in the first place.

And while I am talking about elections, I want to say something about voting for Obama. If you genuinely believe he is the best candidate for the job, then vote for him. Please do not vote for him because of his skin color. If anything should ever be done without regard to the color of a person’s skin, voting for who holds public office is it. One of the things that made me nearly ill in 2008 was the notion that people were supposed to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. Over and over I heard people talk about they had an obligation to vote for Obama because he would be the first black President. That was and is so very wrong.

Please, please, please, do not misunderstand me. I do not care what color a candidate’s skin might be. It could be indigo or plaid or lavender blue dilly dilly for all I care. Please, no matter what color your skin may be, and no matter what you may hear about voting for a black man, remember that the candidate’s skin is not the part of him (or her) making the decisions. What is in the candidate’s brain is what matters. The character and the philosophy and the ideas of the candidate are what matters. And that should be why you vote or not for a candidate.

And for the record, yes, I do vote.

Some News from Minnesota

Posted in Anti-libertarianism, In the News, Libertarianism, Morality, Politics, Running for President, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 20, 2012 by Xajow

No, I am not in Minnesota. But the news of the progress Ron Paul supporters have made there is encouraging. But what I have to say also has to do with what happened before the Minnesota state Republican convention.

I’ll start with a pre-convention article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Paul supporters have already flexed their might in the state’s Republican Party. They claim 20 of the 24 national delegates already selected at local Republican gatherings. They ousted a GOP insider from the party’s ruling body and thwarted some sitting lawmakers’ attempts at party positions.

While Paul has suspended his presidential bid, he’s made clear that his fight in the party is far from over and that the next front is in Minnesota. The 12-term Texas congressman will address the convention Friday night. It’s a privilege he was denied four years ago and supporters have stewed about the slight ever since.

“Starting with the Minnesota State Convention this weekend, our movement has an opportunity to secure more delegates, take control of more local and state parties … to achieve lasting victory in the years to come,” said John Tate, Paul’s campaign manager.

This is an example of the kind of thing Ron Paul supporters all over the country are trying to accomplish. To start taking control of the party. These are the real hope and change people. They are not waiting for someone to give it to them from the top down. They are making the change they want to see happen. They are making a difference. This is how it is done, folks. The only criticism I can make is that this should have happened a few decades ago.

But not everyone is happy about it.

That promise to “take control” is making some longtime Republicans queasy. Republicans who have labored in the party trenches for years consider the Paul supporters upstarts who refuse to see the difference between Democratic President Obama and Romney.

Maybe they do not refuse to see the difference. Maybe they see that the difference is so small that it hardly matters. And that would be Romney’s fault, not the fault of Ron Paul supporters.

“The hideous Ron Paul invasion of the Minnesota Republican Party is not quite over … but enough evidence is in hand to draw some grim conclusions for those who are not enamored of a … fringe cult political figure who speaks to alienated, fairly ignorant and frequently unwashed lost souls,” said longtime Republican activist John Gilmore on his blog this week.

Wow. The sooner control of the GOP is wrested from the hands of people like Mr. Gilmore the better. His attitude is one of the problems with the Republican party generally. They treat anyone who challenges their authority as “unwashed” upstarts who are too ignorant to know better. They have become the stuffy old Scholastics of the GOP. In my opinion, they refuse to acknowledge the problems that are staring them in the face, and they are offended by people like Ron Paul who have the courage to acknowledge the problems.

What problems? Well, favoring big government programs for one. Republican politicians have done almost nothing to actually curb spending. When they had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, they spent and spent and spent some more. And even now, the best plan any of them (except for Ron Paul and maybe one or two others) can come up with is to slightly decrease projected future spending growth. When Republicans had a chance to reform education, instead of lessening the federal government’s role, they gave us No Child Left Behind. When they had a chance to reform federal health care programs, instead we got Medicare D. Last presidential election season, the GOP nominated a “maverick” who wanted to increase the war on drugs, clamp down on immigration, control political speech, and establish mandatory national service. And in the current presidential election season, the frontrunner for the GOP nomination is a guy who seems to take whatever political stance best suits the audience to which he is talking, whether they are liberal or conservative. About the only good thing to be said the GOP right now is that the frontrunner for the nomination is not Rick Santorum, who, as best I could tell, wanted make government more authoritarian than ever. (Why this was considered by so many people as “true/genuine conservatism” I do not know, but it was a little frightening.) And that does not even mention the fact that Republicans have done as much at the Democrats to cause so much of the economic mess we now have. And do not even get me started on their support for things like the so-called “PATRIOT ACT” and the Defense of Marriage Amendment.

So what happened at the Minnesota state Republican convention? Apparently, the Ron Paul supporters did take over, as another article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune  explains.

Longtime activists realized Saturday that their party has changed from one that stressed religious values to one focused on ending the Federal Reserve Bank, bringing back the gold standard and bringing about a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution.

The conflict between the two forces created a tense and anxious crowd.

In front of 2,000 Minnesota Republicans, GOP National Committeeman Jeff Johnson laid out in stark terms the level of anger at the St. Cloud convention.

To “Ron Paul haters,” he advised: “Get over it. … If we don’t grow as a party, we die.”

To “Ron Paul lovers,” he made it clear that longtime GOP activists are angry because they’ve been displaced. “Some of the anger is from people who have been sitting in those chairs for 20 years or 30 years doing hard work and are not here this year because you are here instead,” he said.

Adding to their anger was the belief among some that Paul folks might simply abandon the party once Paul drops out. Johnson advised them: “Don’t disappear.”

I would guess that Mr. Johnson is probably right about the reasons for anger. But there is more to it than that. Social conservatives do not like Ron Paul or his followers.

The change also marks a clear split from when state Republicans made “family values” the passport for party entry. Instead of evangelizing about religious principles, Paul disciples cheer for a scaled-back foreign policy and the freedom to drink raw milk and grow hemp.

“They took over, basically. Nobody else was organizing,” said Andy Parrish, who used to work for Bachmann and is now helping to manage the campaign for the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. “These libertarians don’t believe in natural law whatsoever.”

Mitch Mueller of St. Paul, sporting a Minnesota for Marriage button, said he’s uncomfortable with the change. The party leadership, he said, is “more concerned about being on the right side of history than on being on the right side of nature or morality.”

Mr. Mueller apparently fails to allow for the possibility that Ron Paul and those who support him believe what they are doing is moral. I would guess the same is true for Mr. Gilmore. Unfortunately, people like Mr. Meuller and Mr. Gilmore have been running the party for a long time. And now they are angry that people who do not share their social conservatism have shown up and taken over.

Folks like Mr. Mueller do not seem to grasp that Ron Paul’s politics are very much about being on the right side of morality. I will go so far as to assert that Ron Paul probably believes his political beliefs stem from his moral beliefs. While Mr. Mueller and people like him want to have their moral preferences made into law, Ron Paul and people like him believe that in general that sort of law is itself immoral.

To Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Mueller and folks like them I have to say, your way is not working. You have not saved the country. You have not reigned in government. Your way has given us massive debt, intrusive bureaucracy, and a government that continually seeks to wrest more control away from people over their individual lives. You should not be surprised that people are starting to turn away from your way of running things.

To Ron Paul and his supporters I say, keep going. You are in the start of changing things. This is just the beginning. Keep going. Do not stop now.

To those who accuse libertarians of being against people working together I say, here is yet more proof that you are wrong. Clearly these people are working together for what they believe is a common good. While you may disagree with their political goals, you cannot truthfully claim that they do not believe in working together to make things better for society. Obviously they do.