Ultra-Private Message for Barfle

[OperaTenor]

I'm really starting to cotton to Ron Paul.

Especially in light of this bipartisan effort!

My dream team has switched to Paul/Kucinich or Kucinich/Paul.

[barfle]

You do realize, however, that he will oppose any program to pay your medical bills with public funds, don't you?

I believe any Constitutional scholar who feels that the Constitution really is the foundation of the US government realizes that the invasion of Iraq was done in spite of Constitutional limitations. Unfortunately, the deed is done, and now we have to see how close we can get to a silk purse out of this sow's ear. My best guess is that we'll get a dog chew.

I must admit I haven't paid much attention to Kucinich's positions on things I care about, so I'm unable to comment with any intelligence.

[OperaTenor]

Yes, I realize it, but right now I think it's more important that he seems to be genuine, law-abiding, and is more interested in our national security than the interests off a few corporations. I'm also impressed that he respects the Constitution and would rather look to it for guidance than wipe his butt with it [as is the case with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.].

Besides, if Kucinich ran with him, he might be able to offset the lack of social progression in Dr. Paul.

The only reason I think their teaming up would be even a remote possibility is that they seem to agree on truly important issues.

[barfle]

The problem is that there is no provision for "social programs" in the Constitution. Promoting the "general welfare" is not providing welfare to a few, it's enhancing the environment for success.


I knew I was going to have to set you straight!

[OperaTenor]

Like I intimated previously, at this point, it's a matter of the lesser of two evils for me. I certainly don't seem to be able to get *everything* I want out of government, so I'll take what I can get at this point, especially since what I might get is so very important.

[barfle]

We do agree on that point.

[haggis]

I've been impressed with his originalist interpretation of the Constitution. While I do not support his foreign policy positions, I admired his principled stands.

What I do not admire, however, is his inability to wrest his own campaign away from the crazies who are advocating on his behalf. They, his own supporters, have defined Ron Paul negatively. And that, now, will be his lasting legacy.

His supporters are the Republican equivalent of Cindy Sheehan. Even if I had supported him, His poll-spamming, nasty-emailing supporters would have really turned me off on his campaign.

[BigJon@Work]

O.T. Are you sure you want to vote for another presidential candidate who stubbornly stand on principles developed in an earlier time?

[barfle]

I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention to the advertising programs that have taken the place of campaigning. I haven't been approached by anyone for contributions, and I haven't received any spam for contributions (and my email is known to the LP and the ACLU).

I'm not sure what you meant by "originalist interpretation of the Constutution." If it's strict constructionism, then that's the real definition of "conservative" that "neoconservatives" have forgotten.

[Marye]

You are part of the "Colbert Bump", OT.

[OperaTenor]

You are part of the "Colbert Bump", OT.

Hmm, not familiar with that one. Elucidate, please.

[Marye]

Wiki entry:

The Colbert Bump is the curious phenomenon whereby anyone who appears on The Colbert Report gets a huge boost in popularity, causing them to win elections, receive major awards and even get laid (The Colbert Bumpin' Uglies).

and

Ron Paul: After receiving the bump from an interview Ron's poll rating went from 1% to 2%; which is not counting the massive attention he received after he left the studio.

Stephen Colbert is hilarious.

[OperaTenor]

Oooooh. Sure, count me in, even if I don't watch Colbert(not because I wouldn't want to, mind you).

[OperaTenor]

However, I'm vacillating. I find it a bit hypocritical that he claims abortion is a state issue, but introduced Federal legislation to define life as beginning at conception, effectively making abortion the federal crime of murder.

Riddle me that one, Batman!

[Shapley]

effectively making abortion the federal crime of murder.

There is no Federal crime of murder, except as it relates to the murder of a Federal employee. The definition of murder has always been a State's issue. The law would define the beginning of human life, but does not have any impact on the legality of abortion. I'm not familiar with the particular piece of legisltaion, but most likely it is an attempt to codify the legal issue of the beginning of life. Some States have already moved to define 'personhood' as beginning at conception, others have other definitons and some seemingly have no set definition. It is no unusual for the Federal government to step in and establish definitions, and it is constitutionally justifiable under the 'fair and equitable' clause.

V/R
Shapley