Shuck and Jive

Opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent the views of the congregation I joyfully serve. But my congregation loves me!

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

What About Ron Paul?

Since Rachel has been so nice, I thought I would throw out a blog post about her candidate for President, Republican Ron Paul. I was impressed that the Ron Paul contingent supported the peace rally in Johnson City in September.

Frankly, I don't trust the leading Democratic candidates to get us out of Iraq. Kucinich I trust, and if folks voted their ideals rather than who was politically likely to win, Kucinich would have a fighting chance.

But this post is about Ron Paul. I don't think he has any more chance than Kucinich.

From reading his web page, what do I like?

His stand on the war:

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

No taxes on tips: Sounds fair to me.

Overall, Ron Paul is for limited government. So, he is therefore in favor of less taxes and for balancing our budget. Clinton got us closer to relieving our debt that the Republicans and the current warmonger-in-chief have sent through the roof. I am with him on less taxes, especially when our taxes are funding the war and corporate welfare.

I think I am with him on the environment, but I need to know more. He says:

In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:

  • I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
  • I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
  • Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
  • I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.

Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.

On some other issues, I am less than thrilled:

Education and home schooling (he wants less federal oversight and supports more home schooling--sorry, I think this will make us all dumber). He wants fewer laws against racism (I think that will send us backward. As much as we like to think we are color-blind, we are not). He is against a woman's sovereignty over her own body (which seems unique as he is otherwise pretty much a libertarian). I am for universal health care, so his views are not in line with mine. He wants to privatize social security. Nope.

For a Republican, he's not all bad. I am not sure that is an endorsement.

That is for Rachel. Defend your man!