Don’t read this if you don’t want my thoughts on the upcoming probable Republican nomination for President — unless you just want to skip to the list of Reagan quotes.
My mother, a party-line Republican voter who happens to be pretty smart, despite her devotion to the Republican ticket (sure, she always votes Republican, but she’s still pro-choice and anti-taxes, for instance), recently brought up the issue of politics with me. She brought it up by sending me an email with a bunch of Reagan quotes and a comment about how you’ve “just got to love this guy” as the subject line. Of those quotes, I agree with about 98% of the content of them. While this nation has surely had better Presidents than Reagan, it hasn’t had any better since his time in office. George Sr., Clinton, and George Jr. have represented a disturbing downward trend, while the Reagan administration was a distinctly positive turn of events after the economic disaster of the Carter Administration.
A couple of choice quotes from that email are:
- The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
- The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.
- Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.
- I’ve laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it’s in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.
- Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
- No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.
Of course, I expressed my enjoyment of these (and others in the email), and some of them will be going into the signature rotation for certain of my email addresses. The conversation, in following emails, then turned to more timely political matters. The subject of the 2008 Presidential election came up. I mentioned that Ron Paul, a Texas Congressional Representative, may be running for President. She responded. I quoted part of her response in my reply, as follows:
> Hmmm, I will try to pay more attention to him. > Gingrich probably couldn't be elected anyway. Unfortunately a strong > personality doesn't get much chance anymore. That's part of the reason I'm doubtful about Ron Paul's chances. He's also not much of a favorite among the other Republicans in Congress. For one thing, while he is unabashedly pro-life (which is a political plus in the Republican party), he has stated on many occasions that he absolutely will not support pro-life legislation because he's a strict Constitutionalist, and the Constitution doesn't allow for making abortion illegal. That sets him at odds with the Republican Party orthodoxy. That's not all, of course. It's just one example among many that make him unpopular with his Republican peers. He consistently votes no on pay raises for Congress, on tax hikes, on Welfare (and Social Security and Medicare) increases, on corporate and agricultural subsidies, and so on. The Republican Party orthodoxy might even like him less than the Democrats do, despite the fact that he's pro-capitalism, opposed to affirmative action legislation, supportive of 2nd Amendment rights, and strictly opposed to the Democratic Party's ridiculous "net neutrality" bills. He's basically everything the Republican Party at large pretends to be, which makes him a thorn in the side of the actual Republican Party on the whole. He's also on his ninth term in office as a Congressman, so his constituents obviously think he's doing something right. It's unfortunate that the Republican Party will probably favor someone else over Paul for its Presidential candidacy nomination. He's probably the best bet the Republican Party has for winning the election. The way the political winds have blown lately, the tide of popular opinion has definitely turned against the Republicans, which means that running a more commonplace Republican against the Democratic candidate in the next race will probably result in a rout at the polls. Ron Paul, meanwhile, would grab the popular Republican vote because they'd all be voting "against the Democrats", and would net a significant portion of the swing vote (probably a sizeable majority of it) because of his defection from the lobbyist-funded party line. At least, that's my take on it. I'd certainly vote for him.
Her response, which arrived while I was composing this SOB post, is encouraging:
Sounds like my kinda guy!
Anyway, it seemed like kind of a waste to let that explanation of the benefits of a Ron Paul presidency, and of the potential for his nomination and subsequent election, to disappear into my mother’s inbox never to be seen again except by her eyes. Thus, it’s posted here for your enjoyment.
. . . and by “swing voters”, I mean of course to include every member of the LP that isn’t a complete wanker. That’s most of us (in contrast to the Republican and Democrat parties, which are almost entirely made up of wankers).