People ask me why I support Ron Paul.
If someone came to you and admitted being a liar and a thief but gave you some insurance or proof as to how they've corrected their behavior, you might be very leery about trusting them. Let's say you took a chance and for the sake of argument, trusted this person but remained cautious about such trust. After the person built a personal reputation with you over time, trust would build and if this person showed true honesty and loyalty - true values and morals (and didn't repeat the lying and stealing), the trust would continue to build right? If you witnessed high moral character, sincere regret for/and disembarking on previous immoral behaviors, this trust could definitely grow very deep.
How about a second type of person. Someone comes to you and never mentions any history of fraud, deceit or immorality. But you did your homework and researched this second person. In the process you found some acts of fraud, amoral behavior and low behavior. Wouldn't you be far more skeptical about trusting this person than the first type of person? Most people would be apt not to even bother trusting this second person. Here is why I believe that Gingrich and Cain are the definition of this second type of person.
Let's examine their prior ethical practices (or lack thereof)? Since there really isn't any difference between the Republicans and Democrat choices (i.e. Obama has done everything McCain promised to do upon campaigning against Obama and Obama has done the opposite of what he has promised to do once elected), I've adopted a common term: Republicrats.
I start and end with Gingrich since he's probably the juiciest and probably the most evil (if possible). Will most likely be out of the race soon after Cain, Bachmann and Santorum.
Gingrich is a "big ideas guy" claims to be a fiscal conservative even after taking huge compensation from special interest groups such as the heath insurance industry and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae right before the bubble burst.
The marital affairs are a distraction from the real issues. That said, if true, these allegations do demonstrate the level of morality beyond serving the Federal Reserve (Cain) and securing sub-prime mortgage holders fates through government sponsored entities such as Freddie and Fannie (Gingrich). In addition, everyone who has a memory beyond 1996 remembers Gingrich going after Clinton's impeachment with Ken Starr even though he himself was having an affair all the while. Forced to exit from his position as speaker, it seems inappropriate to me to call him "Mr. Speaker" in the debates though I know this is trivial. I liken it to calling someone demoted from General to Private the previous rank of General. Makes no sense but what in politics usually does?
What can I say? I'm sold on Ron Paul and I pick my "battles" in educating people quite carefully. In other words, those who insist that they are "proud to have a well spoken and well liked president" don't get any argument from me. I feel that my support of Ron Paul is not just for me or those I care about but for the world - including those who are married to the notion of left vs. right (four legs good two legs bad?).
I cannot however help but poke some fun here at how bright the current Commander in 'Chief is. Does anyone who has pontificated how smart Obama is remember him saying he'd been to 57 states so far and had one to go? "Take it to the bank" - the promise to end the war in Iraq, close Gitmo and not build any permanent bases in Iraq (even though what we've done under his "leadership" is build a base larger than the Vatican in Iraq and send more troops into the middle east and now we're poking Iran with a stick again.
There's lots we can do but we must act. Do we want a crash landing or a free fall? If you want the former, let's talk Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment