President Ron Paul

[drewkitty]

Rep. Ron Paul from Texas is running for President. He had a rally here in Mountain View, CA on Saturday that didn't make the media. You see, he's not considered a "viable" candidate although he kicked quite a bit of ass in the Presidential debates. A thousand people still showed up.

He's got a bunch of qualifications:

He's a strict Constitutionalist.

He wants the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education abolished.

He's pro-individual and anti big government.

He's viciously attacked the Republicans for departing their conservative roots.

Last but not least . . . he's been against the Iraq adventure from the very beginning

Finally, the Washington Post has written an article on him.

I don't agree with him on some of his ideas and positions.

So what?

He's a man of integrity and honor in a country that is critically short on both.

Comments

Re: The Nader?

[zakueins.livejournal.com]

Hm? I keep reading articles, and it's like reading two different wars.

You read something in the NY Times, and Iraq sounds like the days of Tet 1969, without Walter Cronkite(1).

You read the blogs-Michael Yon, people that are actually there-it's still a bit of a mess, but it's getting better. The Iraqis want all the idiots making chaos in the country OUT of there, especially Al Qeada, whom they view as another bunch of Persians trying to make it run...

Honestly, the problem has been the Bush administration has done an awful job of selling the war, selling the need for it, and selling how all these movements are interconnected (sadly, that would mean having to hold the Saudi feet to the fire). And, George W. Bush seems to have a positive knack for pissing off his base.

The war needs to be fought, and needs to be won. It just needs to be done better.

(1)-Tet, as a military objective, failed miserably-the United States Army and Marines pretty much racked up the entire VietCong and slaughtered them to a man, and Khe San was not another Dien Bien Bhu(sp). Past this point, the entire "VietCong" was pretty much the NVA and the survivors...except that as a political effort, it was a victory, as it showed the Americans as "losing the war".

Re: The Nader?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

We should be so lucky if it were as good as Tet.

As you point out, the VietCong were combat ineffective after Tet. Most of the action after that was direct combat with NVA regulars.

I should add that immediately after victory, the few Viet Cong surviving were immediately sent to re-education camps and kept there for a decade or so, as a threat to the new regime.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

As you point out, the VietCong were combat ineffective after Tet. Most of the action after that was direct combat with NVA regulars.

The equivalent, in Iraq, would be the Iranians.

I should add that immediately after victory, the few Viet Cong surviving were immediately sent to re-education camps and kept there for a decade or so, as a threat to the new regime.

Sometimes there is some justice :)