Originally posted by whodeyIn a two-party system, you want to be as close to the other party as possible, since the voters at one extreme side of the spectrum will vote for you anyways.
Its an issue people don't really care about? I would have to disagree. The Federal Reserve is a very mysterious organization to say the least. To not make is a transparent organization from the beginning is mind boggling....unless you want to hide certain things. 😉
As for Ron Paul fracturing the Republican party, you could aruge the McCain did as well ...[text shortened]... So if they want to continue to lose elections they can continue on the same path if they like.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's an oversimplification. It doesn't always work like that. If you're too close to the center, the wings of your party might stay home (or stay home in larger numbers than they would have otherwise) or vote for a third party candidate like Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader.
In a two-party system, you want to be as close to the other party as possible, since the voters at one extreme side of the spectrum will vote for you anyways.
It is true, of course, that candidates drift towards the wings in the primaries and back towards the center in the general election. McCain and Obama both did that in 2008. I think McCain was hurt very much by how far right he had to drift to secure the nomination and he was never really able to re-establish his centrist reputation during the general campaign.
Originally posted by sh76Yes, that is true and also makes sure there are some, albeit small, differences between parties in a two-party system.
That's an oversimplification. It doesn't always work like that. If you're too close to the center, the wings of your party might stay home (or stay home in larger numbers than they would have otherwise) or vote for a third party candidate like Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader.
It is true, of course, that candidates drift towards the wings in the primaries and bac ...[text shortened]... he was never really able to re-establish his centrist reputation during the general campaign.
Originally posted by whodeyFrom the article: He cited constitutional concerns in that vote, as he has in his criticism of the Fed and a slew of other issues.
That is a very good point. Did he elaborate as to why?
Personally, I fail to see what "constitutional concerns" there are regarding the resolution. It merely expresses disapproval of the way Iran has brutalized protestors, which I would think virtually everybody would agree with.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo he is not questioning the condemnation of the killings, rather, he is merely questioning the role of government to do so, especially since it is obvious that such killings are "wrong". You know, its people such as this who constantly question the constitutionality of their actions we must throw out of government. Obviously he has no place in it.
From the article: He cited constitutional concerns in that vote, as he has in his criticism of the Fed and a slew of other issues.
Personally, I fail to see what "constitutional concerns" there are regarding the resolution. It merely expresses disapproval of the way Iran has brutalized protestors, which I would think virtually everybody would agree with.
Originally posted by whodeyThat's not what he said, but even assuming that's what he meant, why shouldn't the representatives of the American people express disapproval of actions done by a government obviously felt by the vast majority of their constituents?
So he is not questioning the condemnation of the killings, rather, he is merely questioning the role of government to do so, especially since it is obvious that such killings are "wrong".
As to your edit, if the resolution expressed the desire to overthrow the Iranian government, then his vote was correct. Somehow I doubt it did.
Here's the resolution Paul voted against:
The resolution states:
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes. Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
http://thatselbert.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/house-resolution-regarding-iranian-election-protests/
It's hard for me to see why a "Libertarian" would vote against such a resolution.
Here is Paul's speech explaining his vote:
I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/ron-paul-is-sole-dissenter-from-resolution-supporting-iranian-protests.php
While he makes some decent points, I believe non-binding resolutions have been made in the House since the 1st Congress. And the Framers hardly abstained from criticizing repression in other countries.
Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough I might not agree with Ron Paul on this particular point, I do prefer him over the leadership we have now. Of course, any represetative we put in there has similar issues such as this. In fact, I'm sure you have voted for represetatives that you did not agree 100% with as well. However, like you I agree he has made some decent points here as well. If nothing else, he is admirable for having a mind all his own. It beats being an Obama groupie. I think perhaps one of the reasons he is looked at as an odd ball on the national political scene. Currently, the US is much too meddlesome in the world today and it would be a sharp change in forieng policy than what we are used to.
Here is Paul's speech explaining his vote:
I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious a t Congress. And the Framers hardly abstained from criticizing repression in other countries.
One thing is for sure, he would NEVER have gone into Iraq nor would he have tripled/quadrupled the national debt. Having said that, how much better off would we be today with him in there?