When did popular opinion stop mattering?
I guess it was when the Supreme Court elected George Bush as the president in 2000. A move that I didn’t really complain about at the time but now it worries me.
My dad was trying to convince me that even if Ron Paul supporters were able to get all the delegates they needed to get Ron Paul the nomination the republican party would still not endorse him on the grounds that he is not electable. Maybe I’ve gotten young and idealistic but shouldn’t the government and political parties be responding to the voice of the people? If the people are saying “we want out of Iraq” and there is a candidate that is saying “let’s get out of Iraq” then wouldn’t that make him “electable”?
Have I gone mad? Am I naïve? This isn’t a country that is governed by a ruling class. Every person has a voice and we elect people who we think will be represent that voice. The voice of this country is saying “get out of Iraq”. Hell, my voice is saying let’s get Bush out of office; he has been a complete and utter disgrace. I don’t really understand why there isn’t a Liberal Kenneth Starr forming a grand jury to indite and impeach Bush?
I’ve been thinking a lot about politics lately. Can you tell?
-Josh
Posted on October 22nd, 2007 by schalicto
Filed under: Josh Rants
Let’s set the record straight. I did not say the republican party would not support Ron Paul if he were to get the delegates. First off, he will not get the delegates, even though he is probably the most conservative candidate out there. He is not enough of a centrist to exist in this political climate. If he did get the delegates and the nomination, LOL, he would be the republican candidate. What I said was this would drive the more liberal side of the republican party to vote elsewhere, i.e. democrat, and make Mr. Paul in effect unelectable. There is no middle of the road with him, and I admire that, but it will not get him elected. Yes, I agree, you are young and idealistic, but keep in mind there is more than one issue that PONTUS has to deal with and compromise on, that is how this government “works”.
As far as inditing President Bush, I think you may have to examine that view. I don’t know what he has done to be indited for. He, as many before him has done, made the tough decisions and received the backing of congress to get the job done. Remember the President does not declare war in this country, congress does.
-Dad-
Two words, habeas corpus.
Ok, but dad, please remember that Corgress was acting on falsly misleading information when they originally supported the President. This President gone out of his way to do what he chooses and to ignore the voice of criticism. The voice of the people is being largly ignored by this presidency. Also please tell what impeachable act our previous president participated in? Clinton was found to be guilty of bad judgement and poor character as a husband, but yet as Josh pointed out everything was done to try and impeach him. This president is guily of at least bad judgement and questionable character and yet…
I have to correct myself, the term PONTUS should have been POTUS, my bad.
I didn’t get a chance to rant all of my points.
As long as you brought it up, the previous “President” was guilty of lying to congress. This is an impeachable act. There is no evidence that President Bush ignored any outcry of the people. His assertions were based on faulty intelligence gained from an intelligence gathering inferstructure that was desimated by his predicessor. Enough said on this point.
I also think you are making an enormous mistake by overestimating the electorate. You seem to think that the United States population is as passionate about views as you are. History has proven that this is not true. Most people are single issue voters and can not see the “forest for the trees, or tree” try to broaden your view and consider long range impacts from some of the issues.
Time for a short history lesson, I will try to make this short. In the not too distant past, politics was much simpler. Parties were formed around “Planks” refered to as the structure of views shared by the party. Candidate would run on a “Platforms”, stating boldly what they see the problems of the country were and the direction or plan they have for the country. Ron Paul to date is the only candidate that I have heard professing a “Platform”. Getting any other candidate to commit to an agenda of what they would do short of sound bites that pander to certain interest groups is quite refreshing for us, but we are not common to the electorate.
With all of that being said, I will say that if by chance Ron Paul would get the nomination, I would be very supportive of his run for the Presidancy.
Oh by the way the last rant was me.
-Dad-
I just noticed your title for this rant. Popular opinion still counts, what makes you think yours is the “Popular Opinion”.
-Dad-
I love the internets.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
This page aggregates recent polls taken by top news sources regarding the nation opinion of the war in Iraq. I think it speaks pretty loudly that we want the war to end. My favorite one is the stats from May till now saying 65% of people oppose the war in Iraq. That sounds like popular opinion to me.
I have to agree with Mr. Glenn “-Dad-” here, Ron Paul will most likely not get any republican nomination, however much we here on the internet would like him to.
The vast majority of America uses the internet for “the emails” and nothing more. They are not represented online, and they are the people who will be voting for the next president. It comes as little surprise that Ron Paul is so popular online, because the internet is predominately populated by idealistic young people like ourselves.
The second-best that he can hope for is to lose the republican primaries, and then run as a libertarian or an independent. This way he could likely get enough visibility to be a part of the debates at the least, and do what Ross Perot did in the 90s, which was to bring some extremely important issues (a balanced budget, mainly) to the fore.
The Republican Party nomination process is not a mysterious venture run by nameless, faceless people. The process is run by people like you and I being elected delegates from our neighborhood up to the state level. If the Ron Paul campaign gets people in the right seats as delegates and then the right people to vote for those delegates then Ron Paul gets the nomination. It’s as “easy” as that. Sure we have to do that in enough states but if we are organized then it shouldn’t be an issue.
I don’t think Ron Paul would run on an independent ticket again. But what I would like to see is him in the passenger seat as Vice President. That could give him the name brand to get him in office in 2012.
I dunno, I severely doubt that I would vote for any of the other Republican candidates running even if they had Ronny as a #2. They are all as bad or worse than Bushy, in my opinion. Pandering to moral conservatism is pretty much an instant disqualification in my book (with a few exceptions).
That, plus Ron is so much at odds with all the rest of their ideology, I think that it would be even less likely for someone to pick him as a running mate than for him to get the nomination.
In my eyes, it is the fact that he needs the Republican nomination for any serious presidential bid that is the main problem. The party system is broken, primarily in the notion that the election is essentially a “Who can throw the most money at the media” contest.
If our system embraced more than 2 major political parties, Ron Paul would win hands down. In primaries (and at caucuses) it is the job of the nominees to adopt rather polar views in order to win their respective parties. This, in turn, hurts them in the main election because they cannot appeal to the general public.
I have to say that I’ve become quite political since I started reading your blog… it’s always a good read- even if I have to be constantly reminded how little I know about movies compared to you.
I wish Ron Paul would run as a third party candidate. All too frequently (at least on a state and local level) third party, left leaning, candidates “steal votes” from the Dems…but it hardly ever happens to Republicans. At least if R.P. was running third party he would take votes away from the neocons.