Is it too soon to start talking about how to choose a candidate? Is it too soon to start looking at Presidential candidates? Well, the big media and the news herd have already started talking about Rand Paul. Obviously they're trying to get a head start on destroying his chances. They say don't like him. They say he's scary. They say he's inexperienced (yes, they actually had the hair on their backs to say that out loud with straight faces.). That's all I need to know to look into him a little more closely.
Could You Vote For Rand Paul?
The short answer, if you're just taking a survey, is yes.
The long answer has to do with how much I do agree with him and whether or not I think I can deal with the differences.
The inexperience factor of the junior senator has to be addressed. Yes, he's a noob. We've seen the disastrous consequences that a certain junior senator from Chicago has saddled us with, due in part to inexperience, but I tend to think that has less to do with things than most people do. These top guys get tons of very experienced counsel from hand picked people to join them in leadership. I think the failure of the current administration has less to do with the leader's inexperience and more to do with his ideology and that of the people he has chosen as advisers to further his ill conceived agenda. You become like those you surround yourself with. If you surround yourself with intelligent, experienced and successful people, you can benefit from them. If you surround yourself with thugs, criminals, radicals, race baiters, Marxists and terrorists, well... you see my point. I am not put off by inexperience as much as I once was. Obama has proved that even the most inexperienced can achieve their goals with the right people in place.
I've been a registered Republican for all my years as a voter, but I haven't been a republican in many years, at least not the way they are now. I still hold to the platform for the most part. I just wish they still did. I think I'm more of a Conservative Libertarian. I think Rand Paul, too, is conservative, probably adheres to the Republican platform but no longer to the party. I don't have to see eyeball to eyeball with him in order to support him. To discount a good candidate because you don't agree on what brand of gum to chew, or whatever, is pretty immature.
He wouldn't be able to pass laws to enact everything I do like and he won't be able to pass them all for the ones I don't. No president is ever going to change everything during his own time in office. There's no worry that after eight years with Rand Paul we're all going to be just like him or forced to live inside his world view. He will have influence and make some changes, but no single president alone during his time in office is going to re-make America.
Having said that, at this point in history I would *almost* vote for an anarchist over one of the two parties that get handed to us every election cycle, just to get us turned and going in a different direction. Even an anarchist, in one or two terms, is not going to take the country all the way into anarchy. That's silly! He might, however, get things going in a direction other than the one we're in, which is a fast, right-hand swirl down the drain if we keep following the pattern we've been following.
I guess it comes down to character. I know character is not supposed to matter any more, but it does. Rand Paul has been consistent. That's an admirable trait in today's politics. He has been actively involved, present, voting yea or nay, not abstaining or missing in action, and he's seemingly tireless. I believe it's his intent to get back to where the government is of/for/by the people, where politicians are public servants. (That almost made me laugh! It's been a while!) That's is a great goal and should be a common goal.
I also think, for what it's worth, he means what he says. That's not to say he can't or won't go the way of other politicians, because Washington has it's Washington ways, but I'd like to think he would continue to maintain his character. Thus far he has, and that's what I have to go on. That's practically an argument for him and his noobosity. Maybe it will take a while for them to get to him.
I believe he is more of a "regular guy" than any of these suits that have been paraded out before us in recent years (decades) and can still see the forest despite the trees.
And, he's likable. Evidently his "likability" crosses party lines. That can't hurt.
I know one thing: If Libertarians, Moderates, "Reagan Democrats," Republicans, Tea Partiers (and whatever other group would like to see the government reigned in) don't stop making their voting decisions based on single issue, pet projects like a bunch of dang toddlers, we're going to keep getting George Bush and Barack Obama. Educate yourself, vote your convictions and for the candidate you think is best able to accomplish the most at this time and who is likely to get the chance to do so.
Voting for candidate 3 or 4 is noble, and I can understand why you would and have done it myself. I don't consider it a "wasted vote". Votes are wasted when we wind up with the guys we've had in recent history. I never want to have to vote against anyone or hold my nose and vote again. THAT is a wasted vote. The problem with 3rd party votes is that they can't rally enough support no matter how qualified or right for the job they are, and they detract votes from other candidates. In many cases that's fine. For instance: Barack Obama or John McCain. Seriously? Vote for ANYONE else! God help us!
However, in an election where there is a possibility of having a decent candidate make it past the primaries, or (Oh! May it be so!) a 3rd party candidate that could garner enough support on a national level, then vote for the best choice and get someone in office that isn't "one of them" for a change, and might actually be "one of us!" If we could just stop letting the powers that be and their right hand, the 5th column -- the media-- keep us divided among ourselves and factioned into micro groups with too many heads, we could get a good man at the helm. NO ONE wins when we are divided. Obama only wins because he divides his competition against itself. It works. Folks, don't let it happen again. The Libertarians are the worst about this! That's a main reason I don't associate myself with them.
I will support Rand Paul if he runs, provided no one I like better is running against him. I will vote for him if he is nominated. I will vote for a good candidate who has a chance to win. In the event that we get handed candidates X and Y again, then I will pray for my country, because I don't think there's much hope for a future if things are left in the hands of the ones who are currently in charge, Democrat or Republican.
Agrarian Nation Update 2015
2 years ago