Not even a Clinton can win this election for the GOP if McInCain is the candidate.

I think the Republican candidates who have said, “Obama is the one.”, are correct.

First, I think that, for the most part, all three candidates were strong performers, depending on the issue. They made more effort to contrast themselves from one another, which is helpful to voters, though (most of) Obama’s critiques are so polite and carefully worded that (at times) he does not score the points he deserves.

The Clintons must believe in “slash and burn” politics, for Hillary relentlessly makes personal jabs at Obama. She feels quite comfortable in negative campaign mode; and it is clear that she believes that you win by doggedly criticizing the other guy, while dodging the return fire. I, for one, am tired of this and am hopeful that America is as well. At one point in the debate, she said, “we’re just getting started,” suggesting that she likes this type of tit-for-tat.

Obama clearly does not. He does not like getting bogged down in putting down the other guy or defending himself against personal attacks. It is a necessary evil in his view, i.e., part of the problem of nasty old style politics, not part of the solution. His message of hope strikes the right balance to my mind. I also like the fact that his health plan incorporates an element of choice. I think that he would be fiscally responsible and sensible. For example, his “stimulus” plan included tax rebates for the middle class well before Hillary included that idea. Hillary seems like a “big spender” and having government solve all ills in the economy.

Edwards did very well in the debate, speaking passionately about his humble roots and problems of poverty and class. On the social issues – race, class, the working poor – he has excellent instincts and handles tough questions well. He also knows how to attack on the issues without making it seem personal. He relentless goes after Hillary and Obama on their financing sources, while asserting his independence from lobbyist money. Good move. Hillary was very defensive in response to a question posed by Edwards as to whether she would not have any lobbyists in her cabinet. Edwards’s problem is that he would be too divisive and radical to be electable in a general election. The fact is that most of Americana do not perceive themselves to be in a Marxian-style class conflict. You cannot get elected by bashing corporate America in my opinion.

Obama is the best hope to beat the republicans in my view, especially if the election will be determined by moderate independents, like me. If Hillary or Edwards win the election, I will take a good look at the republican nominees if they nominate a moderate, which seems unlikely.

With that said, Ron Paul wants to diversify what backs our currency. He has talked about the Gold Standard, but it’s not necessarily the only thing he’d like to reserve (I should actually say “save”) our currency with. So, yes, the Gold Standard does make sense to me: stable currency, stable oil/gas prices (google images: “gold and oil charts”), no inflation (because gold’s value stays constant with the other currencies of the world). NOT going back to the Gold Standard is irresponsible, especially when other nations are outpacing our economy and our businesses are getting bought up by foreign governments because of our weak dollar.

A credit-based economy is “soft slavery.” The Wall Street journal is produced because of our credit-based system. It is not in their interest to return to the Gold Standard. That is precisely why Economic Professors who know sound economic principles encourage the Gold Standard even though Wall Street doesn’t so they can exploit our system for their own profit (inflation and interest). Professors are not getting laughed at because the Gold Standard is a dumb idea. They are getting laughed at because Wall Street has no real answer as to why we should stay with the status quo.

LAUGHING
Ron Paul talks about the CIA’s report on blowback and how that department said we were attacked because we’ve been screwing with Iraq since 1953. Instead of any real rebuttal from either McCain or Romney or Huckabee, they laughed at him. McCain’s response was “I don’t want to trade with them. They only want to trade burkas.” Wow. That was great argument there, McCain. It was also very racist, shallow, stereotypical and pathetic. I’m sure it’s on the verge of racial profiling. Perfect qualities for our next president. Ron Paul is right and they don’t really care enough about the issue to go further than that? Of course they sit there with big grins. They can’t debate his correctness so they have to make him look like the silly old man. And, we CAN go back to the Gold Standard. Laugh all you want, but if I know how to make my dollar worth a dollar, while you sit there holding one that’s worth only twenty cents, you can laugh at me all day.

RACISM
This has already been answered satisfactorily. NAACP!

PRO-LIFE
There are no outcries about his stance here, because if it were his choice, the states would decide (through the voters) and his personal views on the matter would never come into play. He said to Congress about abortion, “The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision making by states. Yet modern America seeks a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population…It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens…A pro-life conscience is fostered by religion, family, and ethics, not government.”

The Constitution gives a state the right to choose. Ron Paul recognizes that. What’s your problem with it?

THE CONSTITUTION
You obviously don’t know much about Ron Paul. He said on Tim Russert’s program that he’s not against changing the Constitution, just don’t ignore it. He said there is a tool the government can use to amend the Constitution as needed.

It sounds like you don’t support Ron Paul not because you don’t agree with him, but because you don’t know how agreeable he is to you. It might help you to do your own research and read his writings.

Don’t rely on the spin the media does to discredit him. They don’t want you to know him, which is why they talk about McCain, Romney, Huckabee, [skip Ron Paul] Rudy and Thompson. Or why they show the pie chart without Ron Paul’s wedge on it. NBC did that this morning at 5am. CNN has done it. FOX has done it. It’s sad. Lou Dobbs said there is no anti-war president running for election. PFFF. Right. 70% of Americans want the war to end after learning we were lied to to go to war and they want their rights back that The Patriot Act and Homeland Security has taken away. Yet, they vote for pro-war, no-burka-trading McCain and Romney? That makes no sense to me.

Economy is at the top of the list of voters’ minds, yet they don’t understand that our current monetary system IS THE REASON why we’re in this mess to begin with.

Oil is not becoming more expensive for the rest of the world. It’s becoming more expensive for US. And it’s not that oil prices are going up for Americans. It’s because our dollar’s value is going down because there is nothing to reserve it. You can laugh about the Gold Standard, but we still almost have it.

That’s right.

It is just black gold (oil) that reserves our dollar. Well, it’s not so much that oil reserves our dollar; rather, it’s the sale of Middle Eastern in U.S.-currency that keeps the dollar in demand in the global economy. (For example: China has to convert their money into U.S. dollars to make an oil purchase from Saudi Arabia.) And believe me, the U.S. will defend the U.S. dollar as the Oil Transaction Currency! Without it, our dollar is worthless outside of the U.S.

So, what’s dumber: reserving currency value on non-renewable resources or reserving value on real, lasting gold?

So go do your part and buy another car and another house. Racking up another $20K on your credit card would help, too. Just make sure you pay that recently increased “minimum payment” every month (aka: interest), even though it’ll take 30 years to pay off your credit card if you only pay the minimum.

Now, don’t YOU look like the one who is crazy!
Come on America, think.

P.S. It’s late. Forgive any typos.

A Republic, Not a Democracy [December 11, 2000]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm

Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
[Sept 17, 2001]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst091701.htm

Before We Bomb Baghdad….. [March 4, 2002]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst030402.htm

The Truth About Government Debt [March 11, 2002]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst031102.htm

Why Leave Pilots Defenseless? [Oct 1, 2001]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst100101.htm

U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan
[Nov 5, 2001]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm

Enron, Bankruptcy, and Easy Credit [Dec 17, 2001]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst121701.htm

Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized? [Jan 28, 2002]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst012802.htm

The Case Against the Income Tax [May 7, 2001]
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst050701.htm

Legislative Forecast for 2008
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst011308.htm

On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst123007.htm

I could list more. But his record proves his principled stance on the issues and understanding of them.

He was right abour Iraq from the beginning.

He is also an economist.

With foreign and monetary policy as the two crucial issues facing America today…why wouldn’t one want to examine and maybe support this man.

Why would one vote for other candidates? Were they right about the issues before they became a problem? If they didn’t understand what the consequences of their actions would be from the beginning… why give them the chance to “fix” the problems that they don’t understand?