The 2008 Presidential Primaries

Update: May 2011 – Hey, if you like my writing, you should check out my new website: Sustainable Diversity with fresh new and more in depth material!

This entry had me stumped for many days. I wanted to give an open assessment of each candidate but the length and drollness of it kept me at bay from going too far with it. Instead I’ve decided to focus on all the candidates that matter, the implications of each candidate, and what you should most likely expect from each candidate. I have nothing to lose or gain by posting this and you will know who I support and why just simply by reading. I also feel I’m not going to be using any tricks or misinformation, I’m simply going to point at warning signs or signs of good will that each candidate shows. I will explain why I picked each candidate and why I’ve ignored others. Of course, I do believe, anything is possible so maybe somebody will win the primaries that I ignored – considering that I am making this assessment before even the first primary vote is taken – is not an impossibility.

For Republicans I will discuss the following candidates: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.

For Democrats I will discuss the following candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Dennis Kucinich.

So, it might be reasonable on why I didn’t choose to talk about someone like Alan Keyes, Tom Tancredo, or Chris Dodd but what about candidates like John Edwards, Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney… why aren’t they involved? They have consistently higher polls than Kucinich, Huckabee, and Paul and yet I’ve chosen latter three over the former. Why?

Because I’m being realistic. This close to the primaries there needs to be a strong support base with a solid message or they need to have high polls. Kucinich, Paul, and Huckabee all have the former while Edwards, Thompson, and Romney don’t have the former or the latter. Edwards has hardly moved in polls staying around a tepid 12%, the only news where we hear his name is after a debate night where he seemed to have spent most of his time attacking Hillary. Thompson was supposed to battle Giuliani for top-position but has only slipped in polls. So let’s begin:

Feeding time for the majestic Republican


What does it mean to be a Republican? The answer is not that simple. It is within the Republican party that neoconservatives and Christian fundamentalists have found their niche but to be a Republican does it simply mean one must praise the neoconservatives, who abused our trust in the Bush Administration, and support Intelligent Design, which is direct contradiction to the internationally recognized and accepted biology? No. There are many Republicans out there who joined the party because they support smaller government, less bureaucracies, and less red tape from the government as well as support community unity, manners, and trust. The candidates I’ve selected above will speak loudly about what the Republican party is offering the people in the 2008 Presidential Election. First up:

John McCain:

The Republican primaries are close right now here in early December and I’ve chosen McCain to be my “alternate” candidate. In reality this position could be filled by Romney or Thompson depending on how the election cycle starts to begin. I don’t see McCain as a man who is selling something much different than the other two. He seems to stay well within the Republican “safe-zone” spinning the web of rhetoric not much different than most Republican candidates. He’s typical – he supports continued involvement in Iraq which he claims is the “battleground” against terrorism. He bases his beliefs off of the idea that we need to fight “them” over there so we don’t have to fight “them” over here. He also believes it shows weakness to leave Iraq and he is a candidate that truly believes, with enough support, we can stabilize the country.

John McCain everybody!This, of course, goes against the common sense understanding that no 3rd world country has ever became a working democracy no matter how much support they’ve received (and we give a lot of support – about 12 billion dollars a month (which is 3 billion dollars a week… over 400 million a day). His rhetoric on terrorist fighting is not fact. There is nothing that proves that fighting Iraqis in Iraq is keeping terrorists from attacking the United States. In fact, logic tells us, that because we are personally affecting more people there will be more people who want to harm the United States giving them numbers which give them the ability to attack both home and away. There have been a slaughter of Iraqi civilians since this war started and none of them feel very liberated right now. I don’t say this to demonize McCain, but it is insulting to us as citizens as well as to the Iraqis to play “Daddy” for a different country. The concept should be insulting to you, who is this politician who believes he has a right to continue meddling in a country we had no rhyme or reason going in to in the first place. Where is our integrity as a nation when we don’t admit we’re wrong and continue to mold a Frankenstein’s monster of a creation out of Iraq. The support for the war is low now – as it should be. War is really the last thing we want our politicians engaging in, war is about the destruction of lives including the innocent. Desiring to continue it is shameful. Terrorism needs to be fought through intelligence and while there will still be despotism in the world there are plenty of despotic countries that we don’t just stand by idly, but willingly support, merely for their obedience. If we want to fight terrible dictators, let’s first stop supporting them. China is an extremely repressive country but because of their economic tie it is overlooked.

McCain claims he plans on reforming government as one of his bold moves. But McCain does so well what most politicians do, he says a lot without saying anything. Romney and Thompson also fit this description too. Their differences are trivial at best. McCain on reforming the government (from his website):

John McCain will bring spending under control, veto wasteful, pork-barrel spending bills every time, and keep taxes low. He will reform a tax code that is too complex and too burdensome. John McCain will modernize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He will bring accountability, choice and competition to underperforming schools, so our children are equipped to take the best jobs of the 21st century.

What does this mean?! pork-barrel spending is abstract. What every last person in the United States might consider pork-barrel spending you might, with your wisdom, choose to have a different opinion. Supporting the War in Iraq is pork-barrel spending. It is a feast for mega corporations (over 400 million more dollars will have been spent on Iraq by midnight tonight) and ignoring that as pork-barrel spending already proves he just is not talking straight with us. Reforming social security, medicare, and medicaid could simply mean privatizing at his profit. And he also is promising to maintain the bossy attitude the Bush Administration has taken upon American Education with a contribution of just under 10%. We just don’t know what he is going to do. He says nothing tangible which is so common in a politician and he offers no serious direction or solutions. People are backing this guy because he is safe. He’s not saying anything extreme so it’s easy to be comforted by mediocrity.

Issues such as the severe inflation aren’t addressed and he assumes he can give tax breaks with a falling dollar and a $400 million dollar a day (I can’t stress it enough) war is possible. He’s also divisive. On that same page he blanketly calls out Democrats to be some sort of conspiracy theorists giving no individuality to the real-life options who are markedly different. Look at what kind words McCain has to say about his healthy democratic rivals:


America needs a president who will provide strong moral leadership. A Democrat president will appoint judges who make law with disregard for the will of the people, but to the cheers of those advancing a liberal social agenda.

Holy shit – are we in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia? Seriously. He speaks of democrats as conspiracy theorists… okay – so democrats traditionally want to spend more money on government programs. But not all government programs are bad, and there should be serious consideration to some that would sincerely aid humanity and America. Some form of universal health care would be a financial burden right now, but not if we left Iraq, so McCain is just as guilty of advancing a liberal social agenda. It sounds so Stalinish. Democrats are not evil, they are our friends and our neighbors, even if you do disagree with them on where your money should be spent. Democrats are not morally wrong people and he makes that suggestion by claiming to be a morally correct leader and contrasting with what the opposite is. He’s deceitful. And, just so you know, I’m not a Democrat.


John McCain will pursue our opportunity for victory in Iraq, strengthen our hand in the larger war against Islamic extremists, and make our nation more secure. Democrats will fold our tents, embolden our enemies, throw the region into instability, and increase the risks faced on our home soil. To concede defeat now would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could lead to genocide

I find it remarkable that a Republican has the tenacity to say with (another) blanket statement on Democrats claiming that they will embolden the enemy when it was the Republicans who clearly have already done so. International approval among friendly and enemy states has gone down under a Republican’s watch whom he wants largely to emulate. Iraq never had anything to do in terrorism but yet the two are now interlinked and McCain is a man who takes no issue to carrying on that large myth. At the same time no serious attention is put to alternative energy sources or lowering the price of oil (other than drilling our own which just sounds like lip smacking for money). He shows no interest in restoring Constitutional Rights and will largely carry on many of the negative traits the current Bush Administration carries. Thompson and Romney would also fit the bill nicely to do mostly nothing different at all. The problem with this is that even though this sort of campaign is largely wrong and harmful for America, it is quite comfortable for many of us now and those of us who don’t mind the extra stretch of cash want to see more people like Bush. The problem is more Bush politics will become increasingly unsustainable for the country and things will eventually hurt.

Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee is the one of many candidates from my personal Hell. Why? Let’s ask him:

My faith is my life – it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives them.

Man. I’m not hating on this former minister. There are a lot of people who really benefit from these kinds of circles, I was exposed to them when I was younger and while they were not for me, they most certainly were for some people and they seemed to live better lives because of it. However, obviously, just like everything else – not all of them do. Huckabee is McCain in flavor with a Baptist twist and baptists rival born-again Christians about being most passionate (both negatively and positively) about their faith in God.

I will try and explain this as rationally as possible: While Christianity can be and is currently used for as a positive influence in the world today that does not mean #1) That it has never driven people to faulty decisions and #2.) That it supercedes other beliefs which also have positive influences on the environment… be them a.) different religions or b.) non-religious. This is the 21st Century, there are nuclear weapons on this Earth, there is an international economy, there is a dizzying array of responsibilities that a President must handle and Huckabee’s answer to things seems to be his baptist version of Christianity, including those things that aren’t baptist or even Christian. His strongest policies that he supports are Christianizing public places, forcing marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman, more Iraq war fighting of course (cuz it’s the right thing to do), no abortions… like it’s the Christian Fundamentalists final “Fuck you!” to anyone who can rationally comprehend such a thing as a same-sex marriage in a positive light, or who can understand the disturbing underground, unclean, abortion clinics that will re-emerge if abortion is made illegal again. Huckabee couldn’t be a rational Christian that supported the legality of clean abortion clinics yet, perhaps, support well-staffed, clean, no-questions-asked, drop off points for infants, as well as openly encouraging giving a baby away for adoption over abortion, but not actually desire making it illegal and imprisoning someone for being so desperate.

Mike Huckabee lugging his dinner on his back… I kid, I kid.But are these issues even the ones heavily at hand? No. Once again no serious mention of alternative energy sources, the dependency on China, the falling dollar, anything policy-changing outside of religious backing is clouded once again in politico-speak in which McCain uses almost entirely. Yet his rise in polls is rivaling McCain’s and even passing him in some instances as well as nipping on the heals of the kingly Guiliani. But honestly, sincerely, I ask you as American citizens to look toward reason and logic in this election because choosing faith is nothing more than a deer staring in the headlights of an oncoming car. We have serious issues to work on that the world and our own citizens highly agree upon.

I do believe that men like this should serve as political men on levels where they strongly represent a serious majority of the citizens. There are many areas in America where these citizens are proud to have some local or even state laws that represent that heavy Christian taste. But the majority of America is not a Baptist, and he is using his Baptist faith to lead most decisions for a largely non-baptist America. This will lead to internal religious conflict as well as friction between people outside of the Christian religion. This country needs a uniter and those clinging to a 1950’s America where liberties were not treated fairly at all need to let go because it is ultimately an oppressive view. Just as there was haywire about Obama being a secret Muslim, there is no logical reason why Christians shouldn’t understand why, even though we respect their right to their religion, we should not have someone who primarily looks to a Christian God for one of the most important jobs in the world! Undoubtedly the person should have good morals but it is quite possible to not be this religious and have good morals. And “good morals” are SO subjective! We really don’t know how pious he is and his policies seem to be Bush-part-III with the bonus feature of a more forcibly Christianized America. If you are a Christian, please don’t vote based on your religion, we need reason to run a healthy democracy and we need to understand some people in our own country aren’t Christian and can’t just adapt to your world at your will. This is supposed to be a free country, which allows people to make their own decision, it’s improper for the government to make decisions for us in America. People get caught up in what somebody “is” and not what somebody does. Huckabee makes no serious comments outside of the Conservative “safe-zone” in which he’s guaranteed votes aside to grab those Christians starving for a religious governmental leader.

And as Christian as Huckabee claims to be he is most likely a bigger panderer… Huckabee seems to be trying to cover up that he lobbied for the release of a serial rapist and murderer (how low can you go, seriously) because the victim that was raped was a high school daughter of a major Clinton supporter. Ignorantly many Republicans (wished, hoped? I don’t know) that the rapist was only imprisoned to appease Democrats. Even though other women came forward who were raped by the same man Huckabee lobbied to release him from prison.. Once released the rapist went on to rape and murder a couple more women before he was imprisoned again. While Huckabee most likely was not thinking of future victims, he ignored past victims to please the ignorant Republican outcry. Real Republicans (or Christians) would never lobby to release a rapist from prison. So what does Huckabee do when asked to see the papers that could prove his innocence… once again for security and safety he claims nobody is allowed to see them. Huckabee is just another politician who uses God as a sideshow.

Rudy Giuliani:

Giuliani would spawn out of the same Hell that Huckabee would come from. I can handle the average Conservative jargon with such things as McCain spews, but while Huckabee nightmarishly desires restarting the cycle of a government ruled by religion (a religious government was what the first European-Americans were victims of), Giuliani is like the closet tyrant. Outwardly he’s seemingly charismatic, tough, and compassionate. This is only, of course, if you automatically go in to a trance when you hear the numbers 9 and 11 in successive order. Don’t believe me? You should.

Well so what, he talks about September 11th… a lot… like incessantly. But why shouldn’t he? He took control of the situation (one might argue) and handled it professionally, on top of that it’s common knowledge that it was Rudy and Rudy alone that cleaned up the city. But is this true? When asking the people directly involved and not obeying the mayor simply on his say-so there seems to be different picture. First of all Rudy Giuliani insisted the Emergency Response Center, in case of disasters such as the September 11th attacks, be placed in one of the very buildings destroyed (mysteriously) during the attack. When Giuliani insisted it was his Director of Emergency Management who suggested it go there both the Director and Chris Wallace called bullshit on Giuliani because it was Rudolph Giuliani who insisted the Emergency Response Center be placed within the World Trade Center. The problems with this: #1 – There had already just been a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and #2. – Even when he was caught lying about it he did not admit it. A trustworthy and honorable president? No. But since we’ve set our standards so low we seem to have no serious desire to raise them according to our polls.

On top of that firefighters are openly contemptuous at Giuliani for some of the decisions he did make as well as the credit he took during the crisis. As for the city being cleaned up… surely the Police Department of New York City will back the mayor… well the President of the largest New York City police union, the PBA of the city of New York, claims Giuliani is not fit to be the President of the United States. So where firefighters and police officers became heroes on September 11th, it is those same people who are now calling out Giuliani on his lies and insatiable desire for credit deserved by others, that the self-proclaimed most patriotic American people are ignoring for the charismatic Giuliani-speak.

Come. On. Tower of Strength? Did he suggest that title himself?This is why Giuliani frightens me so. He offers many of the same empty promises other typical Republicans make. He wants to stay in Iraq, spend more money on military (it already crushes the next closest competitor multiple times over) , he wants to completely secure out borders which sounds expensive and Stalinist, he also offers to lower taxes. He makes absolutely no mention once again of the dollar that is worth well less than the Canadian dollar because of the massive spending we’re doing currently. Giuliani wants only to continue to most expensive spending while pandering to the corporate elite that siphon off our funds in Iraq. His mention of alternative fuels is obviously amateur considering the impeding issues there are with using things like ethanol fuel and ignoring such potential gold mines like algae. But Giuliani has a special flavor to him of an intoxicating desire for total control. Not only does he want to “completely secure” our borders, stay in Iraq, spend more on military, but he also demands a unified national identification system which is un-American to the bone. Aside from it being the funeral pyre for the checks and balances the states are supposed to impose on the national government, it also is a very risky, highly unsafe, and easy to tamper with system. It is not the governments job to keep tabs on us, we are not the governments children, we are adults living within an adult society in which we as openly as possible understand there are alternative ways of doing things and that is exactly what makes us free – allowing us options. I can almost see Giuliani at night huddled in the corner staring at his hands whispering about how America will be within those hands soon. He does not rule by logic, he does not rule by reason, he rules by force and that is the scariest thing to support and promote.

So how did Giuliani really handle New York City? Well let’s watch a video of a town hall meeting in which he is being criticized for something, let’s see how he handles it. First the Amalgamated Transit Union is the largest transit union in North America, the entire continent. And the President of the Staten Island division basically calls Giuliani out on some corruption charges. Now whether they are true or not, with complete impartiality, let’s see how Giuliani reacts:

When the corruption charge arises he immediately dismisses it refusing the man to not even present his case telling him to “get out of here.” The man continues to try and talk and Giuliani repeatedly denies him causing the audience to start booing Giuliani! To stop the booing what does Giuliani do? He appeals to the audience of course by telling the man he’ll give him another chance to explain his case… of course with one exception… “cut out irresponsible stupid ridiculous charges.” In other words he is allowing the man to present his argument as long as it’s not critical towards Giuliani. The man was allowed to present one small fact before Giuliani cut him off calling them “ridiculous” again before the man was allowed to make a valid point. At this point Giuliani rudely talks over the man and directs a crony to remove the mic from him as the crowd vehemently boos him. He simply states “I do not talk to people who accuse me of corruption.” Not talking about it does not make it less of a fact for a union president of the largest transit union in North America. Plus in positions of such high power it is only respectable to disseminate any concern of corruption. Giuliani chooses to treat the man the same way one would treat a child if he had sworn into the microphone. In other words he treats the man the way a tyrant would. He removes his freedom of speech and ability to criticize simply at the mayor’s say-so.

Then… he calls the audience a “bunch of immature idiots” for being visibly upset for not being heard. A top running candidate for president of this country takes care of official public business by dismissing them all as a “bunch of immature idiots” then shortly after followed by “You all look too irresponsible to be bus drivers.” He is speaking to these people like children! This is frightening. This is a first class ticket to fascism. “I know the kindergarten does a lot better than these guys,” when they simply had a charge they were not even allowed to bring up. The people got up and left, it might be the right move to do if Giuliani wins presidency. Don’t you hear his policy? He is saying he can make decisions and then refuse to talk to you if you charge him of corruption which means in his mind he’s allowed to be corrupt because he’s not allowed to be questioned about it. Any man who believes he’s too pious to be questioned should not be the President of the United States.

On top of all this, of course, is a scandal that Giuliani is now pretending to not be accountable for. When documents are asked to be produced to clear him, the old Bush excuse “for security purposes” those documents can’t be released. This is old. We need some standards.

Ron Paul:

Out of all of the candidates I chose to talk about Ron Paul is the one with the average lowest Republican approval rating according in national polls. However Ron Paul has a few remarkable aspects that show things might not be as they seem in the polls. Let’s start with the stuff that doesn’t really matter but most people focus on anyway – He has been married once and only once, someone like Giuliani goes from mistress to mistress granting them wifedom and leaving again. Ron Paul had served honorably in Vietnam, Dan Rather is still disputing whether Bush even stayed the time he said he was going to. He has been elected to Congress 10 times by a deeply conservative Texas which shows that he is in line with the Republican party even though people are constantly accusing him of being “out of step” with his party. Ron Paul has been honored with the “Taxpayer’s Friend” award… for 10 years in a row. Ron Paul serves on the Financial Services, Foreign Policy, and Joint Economic Committees which shows his level of expertise in these areas.

Honest, sincere, and thoughtful. We all hate that in a politician.Here are some more Ron Paul facts to show he is not a fringe candidate. Ron Paul has consistently raised more money than the previous quarter this whole year, already topping his 3rd quarter. This can not be said about any other Republican candidate. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee all stalled. In the fourth quarter (which we are still in) Ron Paul raised more than $4.2 million… in one day most likely becoming the largest funded candidate in the Republican race. He also votes consistently and on principle which is completely unheard of with most politicians. Ron Paul has shown up to all debates he has been invited to, even the ones many of the other candidates claimed to be too busy to go. Ron Paul has received more money from military organizations than any other GOP Presidential Candidate. It is interesting that many of those who were chastising Americans for not supporting the Iraq War (because it is a factually illegal war started under false pretenses) by claiming the American people dissenting were not “supporting the troops” are eager to ignore the same call to honor on supporting who the troops want for president. Ron Paul also wants a transparent government (Wake up call – what free country doesn’t?). On top of that Ron Paul has never voted for an increase of his salary in his whole time in government and always takes some of his salary and puts it back in to the government. These are facts about Ron Paul he does not waver on:

-He believes strongly in the Constitution.

-He believes we should have an non-interventionist foreign policy (read: NOT isolationist) and not police the world.

-He wants to remove our troops from Iraq.

-He wants competing currencies and/or the American dollar backed by something more than a printing press.

-He’s a stickler for civil liberties.

-He wants to be fiscally responsible (and has proven with his years in congress as well as in his campaign he can be).

-He wants to give power back to the States and the individual people of this country.

Now when Giuliani was criticized earlier he responded not by saying “Let me clarify what you are accusing me of…” but instead “I do not talk to people who accuse me of corruption” and then insulting his accusers, let’s see how Ron Paul responds to criticism. After Ron Paul raised his $4.2 million in one day Paul was in a unique position to be crushed. By raising his money the mainstream media had to pay attention to him and so Wolf Blitzer took his opportunity with Ron Paul to marginalize him by bringing up all of the times Paul was the only representative (out of 425 people!) to vote against the grain. Blitzer brought up bills voted against bringing up things about genocide all the way to even refusing Rosa Parks a medal. How did Paul respond? At about 5:50 into this video you will see Paul responds… intelligently, even claiming to have offered to give Parks a medal out of his own pocket.

Time and time again Paul speaks to reason and logic. Huckabee argues that when we make a mistake we make it as a single, unified nation and we must follow through with it as a single unified nation, Paul says it’s our responsibility to admit and fix the mistake, not continue it. Then Huckabee airily goes in to abstractions about honor, as if the Bush Administration has any of it whatsoever. McCain calls Paul an isolationist for this attitude (though time and time again he has corrected that lie) and accuses Paul of being the type of person to allow dictators such as Hitler to come in to power. Paul responds logically by reminding us that Iraq had no army, navy, or weapons of mass destruction and there was no serious threat to the world.

He’s somebody who is really working for the people.So with all of these good things about Paul, why isn’t he a frontrunner on the polls. Most likely raking in more money than any other GOP candidate this quarter the reflections should be in the polls, right? Well not exactly. There have been claims that Ron Paul is not getting put in to all the polls or there are facts that mainstream media has been censoring Paul’s success. Mainstream media is a big decider for the American people on which candidates to take seriously and which ones not. By nature the more time devoted to a candidate in a debate or anything the more credible the candidate seems. American people have put their trust into the media expecting that if they spend their time on a candidate he must be credible. When the mainstream does focus on Ron Paul the things said are redundant – he’s an “internet sensation” but claims him not to be a serious contender because his sensationalism is not creating a rise in the polls for him. The debates have also been debilitating. In the recent CNN-Youtube debate over half the time was giving to about two frontrunners on the topic of immigration, which is not even the biggest issue of this election. Ron Paul, a financial frontrunner was hardly given any attention. And the attention given to him was made to paint him as a conspiracy theorist. Even the question at the bottom of the screen is written as “Does Ron Paul believe in a conspiracy…?” He responded logically and reasonably muting any marginalizing comments about him now believing in a conspiracy. The Canadian government and even CNN themselves have knowledge about the factuality of what they allowed to be called a “conspiracy” just to slam Ron Paul.

During the Fox debate Paul had to suffer the same kind of marginalization from candidates despite his credentials and credibility. He’s attacked by the host, Hannity, Giuliani disrespectfully laughs when Paul speaks factual and cited truths, and his win in the polls was dismissed by Hannity as most likely people voting multiple times. Despite all of this the American people still seem to notice Paul’s genuine and very American stance. Even Tucker, who claims to agree with Paul, has a guest that simply slanders without citation. Tucker introduces Stein as one who is “studying” the success of Ron Paul – with somebody who “studies” something you would expect statistical or correlative data. But Stein was happy to use strongly opinionated words to paint Paul as anything but credible. He calls the fans “crazy” and that they only support Ron Paul because they’re confused with the corruption in politics and labels Paul as a “radical” who has used nothing but the U.S. Constitution as his playbook. Then Stein caricaturizes Paul as “adorable” and a “cute little guy.” When Tucker asks a seemingly sincere question, maybe the people who support Ron Paul just like smaller government, Stein paints him as a guy from a movie who almost insanely yells at the government out of anger and dismissing him again as “a radical.” Then our studious reporter calls Paul “confused,” “nerdy,” and says he focuses on “obscure” subjects calling it all “freaky.” The most amazing part is Tucker seems to sell away any support he has for Ron Paul when he brings up that he voted for him last time but always thought he wasn’t a good speaker. Stein corrects Tucker with telling him that Paul is a “horrible” speaker. Then Stein does something really neat, that I think shows the true character of the mindset of those who refuse to treat Paul with credibility:

Stein says you know Ron Paul is “really smart”, and “supposedly his book was really good” (a man who was introduced as one who studies Ron Paul never read the book he mentions). But then Stein says this “You know you’re not going to stay awake for the whole class…” basically saying that the honesty and sincerity of Paul’s desire to work credibly in the position of power is not okay because he won’t be entertaining. And look at Stein – he tries to pull off the laid back messy hair look and when he’s asked a question he answers it as if he just awoke from a stoner slumber like he’s somebody who is so cool and relaxed nothing could bother him. Even the words he uses are totally unprofessional to pull off the image: nerdy, crazy, freaky, adorable, cute, confused, horrible… I would sincerely not be surprised if this guy has a consultant on how to pull off a genuinely fake tv-personality. At any point if Stein was allowed be called one who “studies” it is most definitely not on the subject area of Ron Paul – he admits himself it makes him fall asleep… perhaps Stein is working in the wrong business then, Paul isn’t here for your petty entertainment Stein, he is here to address the problems our nation is currently facing.

These are the barriers an honest and sincere man has to break in order to be treated as a 21st century presidential candidate. While none of the other presidential candidates are as reliable and honest as Paul, no serious attention is given to him in mainstream media. If, for some reason anybody doubts Paul’s credibility to win this primary, I urge them to look at who the American people (not the corporations) are working hard to get elected, and if the American people thought there was a better candidate than Paul why is nobody working as hard for them? Ron Paul is the only honest, sincere, and accountable president running for office who does not have his own un-American agenda, Paul will go directly to the Constitution every time and the minute he stops is the minute all his credibility will fail. There is a Congress and a Judiciary system that is made to make sure his decision is not the only decision – making sure things won’t change so radically people will not be able to handle it – and Ron Paul promises to give Congress, the Judicial Branch, and States all the power the Constitution allows them. Ron Paul just wants a fair and honest political system and nobody can rationally debate that.

The thing is about Ron Paul that strikes me as one of the best choices for president is his ability for the first time in… probably ever… be able to distinguish his personal beliefs from what amount of will he’s allowed to impose on you. So while he is a man who doesn’t agree with homosexuality, abortion, or prostitution he understands the right others have to practice those things and he OPENLY ADMITS he should not be involved. He’s reminding us we have state government too and that’s where we should be looking for most of our laws as well as a local level. He wants us to have our own power and we scoff at him dismissing it as someone we’ve never mets job. This man is an honest impartial gem.


A democrat taking some time for a quick biteWhat does it mean to be a Democrat? Well if them taking control of Congress means anything… then not much. I call it the Democrat paradox. It works like this – many of the democrats in the United States sit back with the smug “I-told-you-so” look on their face with the atrocities of the Bush Administration. “We tried…” they’ll argue with the close elections of both Gore and Kerry. It soon comes to be realized many Democrats feel quite certain that any problems that have come out of the last 8 years in Washington has strictly been because of Republicans in power. In other words Democrats think “It’s not our fault.” Thus the paradox begins – despite Democrats taking control of the Congress and doing truly nothing to restore the checks and balances the Bush Administration is bullying away, because the president was not Democrat it is not the Democrats responsibility to take care of the problems that have occurred because of the Republicans.

Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton may just be the worst presidential nominee out of both Republicans and Democrats, yet she is in the lead in the polls. What astounds me is the desire of the American people for only 2 families to rule the country for over 2 decades. Hillary Clinton keeps being described as “tough as nails” making her a serious contender for these elections but she, just like McCain or Giuliani is heavy in politico-speak. That’s the rhetoric that allows someone to use a lot of words without actually saying anything. How do I know? Take a look at her issues page, she is the first candidate I’ve seen who has 12 different pictures of herself on the same page. Oh look – there’s Hillary giving a speech, oh! and look – there’s Hillary greeting some people, oh and look at that! There’s Hillary talking to an old lady – I didn’t know she talked to old ladies too… oh and there’s Hillary looking picturesque, I want a president who can look picturesque. 12 images of herself. And we have to take this woman seriously? Okay well what does she promise? I may just be over-exaggerating. Well she claims she plans on bringing troops from Iraq home – oh… after Iraq is basically a stable democratic government… so in other words our troops aren’t coming home. Many of the other things she stands for requires no action at all on her part: a champion for women, fulfilling promises, being innovative… these are abstract things that once she is elected she can remove from her page and claim she is working on them locking them away in a closet until it’s convenient to use them to make herself look good.

… But there’s one thing we know about Hillary that we know she will do for a fact. She wants to be known as “The Health Care President.” And this is what I’m talking about with politico-speak. She carefully weaves her way around the Iraq issue as well as other issues using a vast array of words that basically could mean anything. But she is concrete about one thing: federal health care for all. You know how honest a candidate is depending on how many concrete things they say – this is Clinton’s only honest point. But there is a problem, we do not live in Hillary Clinton dreamland where she is allowed to make up whatever comprehensive bureaucracies she desires. President Bush is effectively draining billions of dollars in Iraq as well as other comprehensive national security interests which Hillary Clinton supports! There is not enough funding to keep the big-brother attitude of the Bush Administration and give comprehensive Health Care a fair attempt. The American dollar is plummeting because of the excess spending that is occurring and starting a comprehensive national health care program will cost hundreds of billions of more dollars to be done right.

In a recent debate Hillary Clinton was asked a very unique question that to anybody else would seem a trick question. She was asked if national security is more important than human rights… her response? “I agree with that completely.” Human rights means one thing – treating a human like a human – not like a pile of crap, a pile of garbage, a consumer, a special interest group, a cow for the slaughterhouse… but a human. When we effectively allow the president of our country claim that security is more important than treating people with the respect of being the same species as herself, we’ve effectively removed whatever freedom we have left in this country.

Hillary Clinton straight off her issues page:

Americans are ready for a government that puts competency ahead of cronyism. For the past six years, we’ve had an administration that has contempt for government. And because they view it with contempt, they treat it with contempt. We need a return to transparency and a system of checks and balances, and a 21st century government to meet our 21st century challenges.

Plastic?Sounds good right? It would but notice that she is absent on the list of those who signed an oath for presidential transparency. Look at the quote again. Look at the link again. One more time. She is not honest. Alone on the statement that she believes national security is more important than human rights will allow her to continue what President Bush is doing – calling information a security risk when it could be used to prove irresponsibility. She has no desire to restore freedoms that the Bush Administration has corroded away… and why would she? She is so powerful she probably sincerely believes she does not have to be held accountable like a human – in her mind her own privacy is more important than her citizens privacy. Her own cronies are popping up over and over again smearing the opposition and getting in scandals. Time and again we ignore these things and accept it as just part of the game of politics. The problem is… politics isn’t a game… it’s the rules of our life. Depending on what a politician decides whether you will be able to have freedom over your own body… or not. Using common sense it can not be good to keep picking our leaders from the same gene-pools especially since this country was specifically founded to circumvent such preposterous leadership. Clinton is part of an American elite family with a lot of power which has only been used to raise herself. Being a resident of New York State I have nothing remarkable to say about Clinton’s Senate run here. She has comfortably found a niche where she will always use politico-speak to justify her actions leaving people confused and ignorant to return back to their unfulfilled lives wondering what they’re doing wrong. Clinton is a thoroughbred politician – made to play the game and know what big businesses to manipulate to always get her way. She will stay in Iraq most likely for her whole term and beyond probably forcing a media highlight when she lowers the troop level by a few thousand about once while she’s in office. She ignores the plummeting dollar and just, again like all the other politicians who have mastered politico-speak, promises to cut excess spending. At the same time she wants comprehensive health care for all Americans… more cost, much more. There is no way to pay for that but she ignores that.

There is no doubt that the health care system in this country needs reforming, but it does not necessarily have to be socialistic. Americans used to be known for their ingenuity… now they are becoming known for their laziness. Other social health care countries do have their problems, including our neighbors to the North. However they are fiscally responsible and our country is not – so what can we do if the social health care problem flops and we have no other options? None of this is addressed by Clinton, just beautiful titles such as “The Health Care President” is what she’s interested in… the logistics aren’t her problem… they’re ours.

Dennis Kucinich:

Okay Naked Man in the Tree… why Kucinich? At least Paul has raised more money than any other Republican candidate but Kucinich lags in all the polls. There are actually a number of reasons to bring up Kucinich in this race… the biggest being he is most likely the most sincere and progressive candidate on the Democratic side (some might argue for Gravel but Kucinich is by far the more exposed of the two). Kucinich highlights something for democrats, and this is exactly what I mean by the Democrat paradox. Lazily they’ll let someone like Hillary go in to power claiming she will restore checks and balances yet allow her to use the same excuses the Bush Administration is currently using to not restore them.

The principled DemocratSo while honest and sincere Republicans are working frantically to get someone like Ron Paul in to office to keep this country American, the Democrats solidly support Hillary. “Hey – Bill wasn’t as bad as Bush, so let’s put his wife in. Case closed.” That is about as far as the average Democrat seems to be thinking. Kucinich, like Paul, is an honest man who seems to be working on principle… a word rarely heard in Washington these days and automatically why his ratings are low. He isn’t attuned to “the game” so he’ll “never win,” you’ll just be “throwing away your vote.” But despite that Joel Stein attitude, we still must focus on Kucinich because he is an honest and principled man.

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic Candidate running that voted against authorizing the war in Iraq and against funding its continuation. That’s right – that means Hillary has done the opposite. Dennis Kucinich has a health care plan that actually has been thought through – once again, unlike Hillary. Now I’m not saying Kucinich’s health care plan is the best (though he’s obviously thought smartly through it), but at least he is concise on how it will work, if Hillary respected her citizens she would do the same. Dennis Kucinich supports personal liberty… once again this simply means treating people as people despite whatever they have done, Hillary said it herself… national security is more important. He seems to be the only sincere candidate that deals with the necessities of sustainability. Unlike other candidates he seems to have sincerely thought them through and wants to start implementing honest change that is needed in the 21st century to avoid global catastrophe. He doesn’t say one thing and then do the exact opposite like Clinton, anything he says, you can be sure of his word. At minimum we should have a candidate like that in office. What he stands for is comprehensive and thoughtful and devoid of politico-speak that Clinton has mastered so well to please those in positions of power.

There is only one problem with Dennis Kucinich and it has nothing to do with the man himself. It has to do with the Democrat paradox. There is no backing by the people insistent on fixing what Bush has done wrong in the Democrats. The problem is the most intelligent Democrats- the ones that recognize this paradox on some level – do want to vote for Kucinich. And because of this we need to understand the second part of the Democrat paradox…

Barack Obama:

I’ve purposely left Obama out of the discussion until now. Hillary is the solid front runner. Edwards is not sticking out and I promise you he will not find his support on the campaign. Kucinich has a more loyal backing than Edwards. Because of the Democrat paradox there is really no division within the party (totally unlike the Republican party) and no reason for the Democrats to spread their solidarity. Of course, like anyone, the Democrats like some healthy competition so they have two leading candidates – Clinton and Obama. Now this is where the Democrat paradox gets really complicated. Bare with me.

And he likes wrist bands!Barack Obama, by all counts, seems to be a sincere and honest candidate. While Clinton tyrannically claims security is more important than freedom Obama calmly explained (before Clinton even made her statement) that they are not contradictory but are in fact complimentary… good show old man! That is the correct answer! As our good friend Ben Franklin once said: “”They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Also Obama appears on the list of presidents who would signed a transparency oath… so he puts his money where his mouth is… once again, unlike Clinton. Yet Obama seems to balance the Kucinich in him with the Hillary in him busting out his own politico-speak from time to time and thus the Democrat paradox fully takes its form:

The “I-told-you-so” Democrats sit high on their Clinton fence looking down on the controversy that faces the rest of the election. The Democrats whose thoughts go no further than “Bill was good… so throw in the wife… and give me free health care to boot!” yawn as they wait for the Primaries so they can flick their ballot and get on with important things in life.

Then there are those who have been deeply following the candidates angry at the joke the Bush Administration has created in our government searching desperately for a man (or woman) who can make sense of the whole thing. These are the Kucinich supporters. Unable to make enough noise they sit slumped at the bottom of the polls.

Then there are the Obama supporters, who can see the honest effort of the politician but allow him to get away with some non-answers probably because of his overwhelming charm. Obama has solid potential to be a good, honest, sincere, hard-working, dedicated, president… everything opposite our current one. He doesn’t let fascist viewpoints cloud his critical thinking skills, but because many find Kucinich more engaging there will be a split between Obama and Kucinich with people who largely want the same thing. If all Kucinich supporters supported Obama or vice versa there would most likely be enough to beat Clinton… who would categorically be a bad president.


I try to live my life as honestly as possible. I understand that my viewpoint is not the only viewpoint in the world and that I must share my beliefs with those who feel differently. What is most important though is that some other group doesn’t end up feeling entitled to tell me… or you… how to live. This much is fact. We need a well balanced and well checked system that has been eroded and eroded to the point of elections becoming nothing more than a joke. “The lesser of two evils” is the way the final elections always go… but 3 candidates really stand out and have a chance – Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Dennis Kucinich… who are not putting the balls of the nation in a vice (women do not have an extremity that they could put in to a vice that would hurt as much as the balls – I, too, believe in gender equality and can also paint the country as a women at some point in the future).

They would be a pretty respectable matchup, you must admitPersonally I’d love to see Kucinich backers to back up Obama because of the Democrat paradox. While Obama isn’t my ideal choice it really is the realistic choice. A small percentage is the only gap between him and Clinton that Kucinich backers could fill. On top of that the only presidential candidate on the right I’d like to see is Ron Paul. Though the mainstream media does not take him seriously I am here to ask you a very personal question. And I really want you to think about it.

Aren’t you tired of people you’ve never met telling you who is a credible candidate and who isn’t? Aren’t you interested in seeing somebody, for once, run on principle and example rather than by intimidation, secrecy, and lies? Are you not interested in living your single life to the fullest allowing yourself and your community to make your rules and not people in Washington DC? Certainly we all must compromise to live peacefully together but should we trust any of the inconsistent politicians to make those decisions?

Depression and loss of focus are huge issues in this country. Many people are unhappy with how often they work, how much they get paid, and how many arbitrary rules they must follow that it kills them from the inside. Sure – those who are puppets happily adapt to arbitrary rules especially if they are a financial recipient of those arbitrary rules… but isn’t it unfair to play a game with peoples lives? I mean they don’t get another chance at a life. They die and then they stay dead. Never again will they be the person that is under the ground… and to think they spent their whole life treated like a paper that needed to be profited from. Let’s let the billionaires suffer for once… I’m sure it won’t be too awful for them.

My suggestion to you is to vote for Ron Paul and Barack Obama for the 2008 Presidential Primaries. All of you who want to be freed from forced obedience for profit. Ron Paul would force Obama to be more direct and Obama would force Paul to look at things where federal spending might be pertinent. For once in the history of my lifetime in America there will be a solid debate between two principled intellgent candidates. Not a joke like the Kerry-Bush race. This is the 21st Century and we can not spend anymore time holding on to ways of the old. The time to move on is now. Otherwise we will all be forced to suffer the consequences of inaction and stubbornness. This is my realistic suggestion for anybody interested in making sure the debate for president is one that covers comprehensive issues to their foundation. Obama would always have to answer to Ron Paul’s constitutional charges and Ron Paul will have to answer on how much we really can eliminate the federal government in our personal lives or how much is wise to eliminate. Ron Paul draws from very old ideas while Obama is a very current 21st century politician, but the most important thing is I believe they’d both want a fair election and to truly work to help the American people. I encourage commenting on this, I’d love to hear any flaw in reason or logic I’ve made with this. I’d love a logical discussion that focuses on the most progressive campaign for the American people. Please comment.


7 Responses to “The 2008 Presidential Primaries”

  1. Keith E Says:

    This is the commentary that has been kicking around in my head this entire campaign and I am so pleased that you have articulated it so eloquently. It’s just impossible to ignore the media’s bias against the only three honest, decent people in this election…and it is so offensive to me, as an American. I hope to God we get even one (all 3 would be a dream…with the odd man taking on a VP role) of these three fine candidates in the general election. The future of America is truly at stake.
    thanks, sincerely.

  2. Keith E Says:

    I should have said “stomach” or some other verb rather than “ignore”. Many people are ignoring it, blissfully.

  3. nakedmaninthetree Says:

    Thanks Keith, I’m glad you agree.

    I really like Kucinich, I really do, but I don’t think he has the support for presidency because of the large amount of Democrats ignorant of their party’s misdeeds in keeping the Bush Administration in check.

    Kucinich, while he most likely won’t win presidency this round, is a respectable man who should be appointed into any position where honesty and integrity is crucial.

  4. VC Says:

    3 idealist candidates in one election? 2008 is definitely the year in which my hopes soar for an Obama/Kucinich vs Paul matchup and are crushed when we’re stuck with Clinton vs Giuliani.

    Unfortunately, Kucinich’s internet campaign isn’t nearly as effective as Paul’s (which is getting to be annoying, it’s so prevalent). I think his is a failure of campaign management.

    Great post; informative, very well cited, passionate. This is why I get my politics from the internet and not television or radio (except for watching debates, etc).

  5. Keith E Says:

    I think both parties are relying on the assumption that Americans are too dumb to understand the complex issues to which Kucinich and Paul speak. This is at least partly why the establishment media is trying to marginalize them.
    The internet changes things. Sooner or later, the people are going to demand their candidates speak to the issues that matter. I hope.

  6. JKHutz Says:

    I’d say the best way to judge who the PEOPLE want as presidential candidate is to look at who they are ACTUALLY working for:

  7. nakedmaninthetree Says:

    Exactly VC – I just am trying to get people to rally behind one good democratic candidate because I dont want to division making Clinton the one elected.

    Keith – I think we should just keep getting the message out, I know I’ve changed some minds.

    JKHutz – you’re right, I linked a similar map myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: