The Forgotten Son: Ron Paul

Ron Paul always seems to not be taken seriously. It's unfortunate. After all, he's the one who said governments should have less influence on people's lives. He campaigned hard on it in 2008. Now, it seems everyone else is capitalizing on his original message. He continues to be forgotten:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The media's ignoring of Ron Paul hasn't gone unnoticed in the mainstream media either:

By now, pretty much everyone agrees Ron Paul was ignored by the media following his second place finish in the Ames straw poll on Saturday. Whether or not the media blackout was justified due to his less-than-favorable campaign prospects is subject to debate.

So what are Paul's prospects? We can judge some of it by his ability to raise money right? Well, he's cash:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised $1.8 million in 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday, a major online "money bomb" timed to coincide with his 76th birthday. This is the fourth time Paul has raised more than $1 million in a day this campaign cycle, and a signal that he will have the money to compete as long as he wants for the Republican presidential nomination.

Paul is still behind Romney and Perry as far as raising money, but the man is raising more money than Michelle Bachmann at this point. He's not going away. And with all that money, he should not go away quietly.

He's also polling well in New Hampshire:

On the ballot Romney remains in a strong position. He leads all candidates with 36% of the vote. However, Perry, making his first appearance in the NH Journal poll, debuts with a strong 18%. Ron Paul continues to impress despite relatively little media attention with 14%. And Bachmann earns 10%. All other candidates were in single digits.

So despite the lack of media attention, Paul continues to raise money and do well in the polls. You've got to still wonder why no one's considering him a serious contender. Is the media attention the only thing keeping him from being a serious contender.

Yet we see all these other candidates that seemingly have no chance getting media attention. Rick Santorum continues to get attention, despite finishing a distant fourth place. Even Jon Huntsman is getting more attention than Ron Paul. What's the deal with that:

Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.

Even more worrying is the fact that not only is Paul getting outshined in media coverage by his fellow candidates, but also by the potential Presidential candidates.

The Tea Party is using a radio blitz for Sarah Palin. Everyone under the sun are waiting for a Paul Ryan or Chris Christie to throw their hat into the race.

It's unbelievable.

In many ways, by not giving Ron Paul fair time or attention, he is becoming a forgotten man in this race. However, the extent to which people are going to ignore him is ridiculous. Palin, Ryan, and Christie aren't even in the race, and attention should not focus on them until they decide they want to serve our country. Huntsman and Santorum are not campaigning nearly as well as Paul, yet they are both getting the mainstream treatment. Whether you like Ron Paul or not, you should agree his voice should at least be heard. The media blackout on Ron Paul is anti-American.

Let the man have a voice.

Michelle Bachmann Overdrive

The WSJ had an interesting front page piece on Michelle Bachmann. For the most part, it focuses on her positives:

But here in Iowa, the tough rhetoric is sheathed in a soft presentation. Ms. Bachmann hugs, dances and offers girl talk on the campaign trail—"That's a rockin' shirt!"—as if baking her steely conservatism into a warm apple pie.

But it also, highlights some of her faults as well:

"I found out real fast that the Michele I knew publicly is not the behind-the-scenes Michele," said Ron Carey, who was hired as Ms. Bachmann's staff chief last year and says he quit less than six months later. Mr. Carey said that Ms. Bachmann was consumed with getting herself on television and seemed indifferent to the task of tending to her district, a view expressed by more than half a dozen other former aides.

While she may appeal to many socially conservatively individuals:

Ms. Bachmann's supporters say they are energized by her stances against abortion rights, gay marriage and government bailouts.

She clearly lacks the experience to be commander-in-chief.

Furthermore, her interests seem to be driven more by personal ambition than anything else. That's what bothers me with politicians more than anything else. I think this part is a good example:

For months, Mr. Carey said, the staff tried to get Ms. Bachmann to stop saying in speeches that Mr. Obama had added more to the federal debt load than all other presidents combined. "It was simply not true, and yet I could never get her to drop that line," he said.

You can't stretch the truth to win votes in my book. I understand speaking negatively about the opposing party's leader because it does help rally your constituency and supporters, but lying is simply not something I support at all.

I don't know how the Republican race is going to play out. I'm concerned that we will have another election where the best candidate to lead our country will not be in the race. No one in the race thus far has really inspired confidence in me.

The Party Problem

Yesterday, I was talking about why I like David Cameron. He saw that his party was losing popularity and appeal, and that changes were necessary to reform his party. In order to do this, he chose to have the party adapt policies or stances that would attract new segments of the British population. The idea to change the parties stances seems to have gone over the heads of party leaders in the United States. Republicans and Democrats are hellbent on creating a partisan society. It's all about allegiances to the party and not about making the right decisions on getting things done. This stems widely from the fact that both parties have taken opposite stances on pretty much everything, and the only thing they have ended up agreeing on is their love for America. The problem is this partisanship makes it so they can't help America.

I wanted to focus on the Republican Party because I think they could be the more likable party if they decided to make some reforms. This is because I hate a lot of the social initiatives like healthcare, welfare, and other government institutions that the Democrats have created. I believe decisions should be made on what's right. I believe whatever helps America should be what is done. I also think that America has gone soft. It's not that we have too many people, but rather we've just become a fat cat nation. I'm not just talking about weight, we have become too complacent in our status as the leading nation in the world, so now we're struggling to get the wheels moving again. We need to become more competitive as a nation. I attribute a lot of this to the fact that we've gone against basic biological principles, namely Darwin's survival of the fittest. The strong should survive and the weak should die out. If you're saving the weak, it's not the strong that are paying the price, it's everyone. I could go on and on, but the main point is that the Republican Party's policies go more along these lines than the Democrats.

My main problem with the Republican Party is their leadership. Their leadership is more focused on creating partisanship through fear mongering than they are trying to do what's right. The policies are what dictate a party's appeal, and the policies of the Republican Party are archaic. To alienate certain demographics is just asinine. Their stance against many civil rights movements as well as religious and moral overtures in shaping these policies more than turns me off to policies they have right like the economy and taxes. Morals do have their place in politics, but religion should not be used to shape it. We should not be using religion to form opinions on abortion. We should not use religion to create prejudices against people. That's not the American way. They have no way in politics. They may shape your personal decisions on certain issues, but they have no place on the national stage. They need to ease off on imbuing religion into politics. They need to make wholesale changes to reach wider demographics not to get more people to vote for them but also to better America.

If the Republican truly care about America like the Tories care about Britain, they will be willing to compromise some of their policies because of their love for their country. They should be wanting to better America because as great as America is, there are things that need to be fixed. I find it hard to believe that the Republicans truly love America if they are so willing to divide it. The welfare of the nation should always be the number one priority. It always amazes me how individuals consider their own beliefs before those that will improve welfare of the nation. It's about time someone started to put more belief in America, the American People, and the American Idea.

Video of the Day: Jon Oliver at the RNC Meeting

This is hilarious.

Part II

Review: State of the Union

As I previewed earlier, today was Obama's State of the Union speech. In the speech, which lasted well over an hour, Obama discussed a wide range of topics, from healthcare, the economy, gay rights, a high speed rail, the supreme court and national security. What I want to do is see reactions over the different issues.

First off, Here's the Republican response:

Health Care
Obama called for the senate to resolve the healthcare bill:

“This is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became,” he said. “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.”

It doesn't appear like he's getting a favorable response.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said that, after watching the speech, health reform appeared unlikely to pass as one comprehensive package.

"I think right now it's less than 50-50," she said of a consolidated bill passing. "It's very hard to see a path forward in the current arrangement."

The healthcare bill has been much maligned. I personally felt that the senate was pushing it when there were other issues that were more prevalent such as the economy. I've heard criticisms from both sides and statistics and what not, but I have absolutely no idea what the bill entails. If the senate wants public support, it's important that the public know clearly how they will be affected by it. John McCain criticized the Obama administration for promising transparency, but not delivering. The healthcare issue is exhibit A.

Economy
Obama has called for a new jobs bill:


Gay Rights

John McCain's response:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

“This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

High Speed Rail
Here is the plan that will arise from the speech:

President Obama will kick off his post-State of the Union tour with what aides describe as a major economic announcement -- $8 billion to begin building a high-speed rail infrastructure in multiple states.

The money is a "downpayment" on the rail system, officials said, and will go to local governments for distribution. A total of 13 major areas will benefit from the project, whose reach will be felt in 31 states, the administration said.

Supreme Court
President Obama criticized the Supreme Court:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

Justice Alito was not very pleased:

"Not true, not true," he appeared to say, as he shook his head and furrowed his brow.

Conservative legal groups aren't happy either:

"The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics -- scapegoating 'special interest' bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy," said Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC member and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.

Citizens United had this to say:

"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American citizens," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.

But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court ruling will be challenged in the future.

National Security
Here's a taste of the reaction for National Security:

David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official and foreign policy expert, said Wednesday night that he “can’t recall a state of the union that devoted less time or attention to foreign policy issues than this one.”

Rush Limbaugh Hospitalized...

...in Hawaii.

I wish I was in Hawaii. I wouldn't mind being hospitalized. Here's the status of his condition:

The station, citing unnamed sources, said paramedics treated Mr. Limbaugh and took him to The Queen's Medical Center in serious condition.

He is, of course, the last crusader of the Republican Party.