Paul would remove America from War

Many years ago President Ronald Reagan said Ron Paul was one of the outstanding leaders of our country, fighting for a stronger national defense.

As a former Air Force officer, he knew well the needs of our armed forces, and he had always put them first. Today, as Paul serves his 10th term in the U.S. House, his feelings have not changed one bit. However, he is totally against our involvement in Iraq because it is a no-win situation costing us thousands of lives for a war that is basically unconstitutional, because it is being fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress.


Currently, as a Republican candidate running for president of the United States, Paul acknowledges the American people have spoken against the war as well. When asked how we end it, Paul says, "Why not exactly the way we began it? We just marched in, and now we can just march out."
Republican candidate for president, Paul, always has believed our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations and against entangling political and military alliances. Log on to acaseforronpaul.com and discover how Paul is our only hope for America in the 2008 presidential election. Discover his consistent voting record, his ideas on limiting governmental interference in private lives, his belief decisions with regard to our nation should be based on the U.S. Constitution, and why he was voted the taxpayers' best friend.

These and many other issues pertinent to the future of our country are on line for you to view and perhaps be a part of Paul's Hope for America Campaign.

Kucinich thinks Paul should be heard

Just about every day, another prominent Republican decides to leave Washington for private life, though not many Democrats are leaving. Both parties expect the Democrats to win control of the Congress and the White House in 2008, so even former Speaker Dennis Hastert and former Senate Leader Trent Lott are calling it quits. They apparently don't want to risk remaining in the unpleasant position of being in the minority.

This shouldn't be too surprising, because it reflects important differences between the two parties. Republicans, generally, don't like government, to start with. Their current great hero, Ronald Reagan said it best: "Government is not the solution; government is the problem." Democrats tend to follow Franklin Roosevelt, who believed government should take the side of working people to do the things they couldn't do for themselves, or that business wouldn't do. Thus, he created Social Security, unemployment compensation, and so on, over Republican opposition. Taxes were assessed more on the wealthy and big business than on working people.

ADVERTISEMENT

In recent years, the parties at the national level have changed somewhat, as the Republican Party has been strongly influenced by Christian fundamentalism, especially in the South, and the Democratic Party has been wooed by big business. Both parties cater to media giants that tend to control communication. This has resulted in the political dialogue moving to the so-called right, away from activist government in economic matters, but toward confrontations over religious issues at home, and economics and religion abroad.
So, we find all of the Republican candidates except Ron Paul supporting the war in Iraq. The Democrats - some which supported the war - seem mostly unwilling to withdraw all of our troops and end the occupation. Apparently, they are reluctant to allow the nations of that region to control their own oil, the main reason we have intervened there.

Among the Democrats, only Ohio's Dennis Kucinich advocates a total withdrawal from Iraq and the region. He led the opposition to the attack on Iraq and now, logically, supports the impeachment of Cheney and Bush. He also has been a strong advocate for alternative sources of energy, reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Kucinich is the only current presidential candidate advocating full national health care, "Medicare for all."

I had dinner with Kucinich, when he was mayor of Cleveland and getting blamed daily in the news for Cleveland's economic ills. His perspective was he was standing in the way of the Cleveland municipal power company being privatized, so he was the target of wealthy interests he called "corporate vampires," who were subjecting Cleveland and other American cities to "economic strip mining." He stuck to his guns, and the profit-free power system continued to provide cheaper energy to the area. He also engineered an increase in the city's income tax on upper level incomes. Like FDR with his Tennessee Valley Authority, Kucinich was providing a model for energy alternatives, and like FDR, he was taxing those best able to pay to fund government services.

Of course, the media still blame Kucinich for Cleveland's continued economic ills, even though several mayors, including current Sen. George Voinovich, have struggled with and failed to solve that city's problems. At the root of most of the economic problems of America's cities is, in fact, something like the economic strip mining Kucinich pointed out - but that's another column.

It's too bad that in the current presidential campaign Congressman Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul - both of whom oppose the occupation of Iraq - are treated as insignificant. They speak for millions of people, and are the best expressions of the two philosophies of government. Paul, the libertarian, arguing, "That government governs best which governs least," and Kucinich, the progressive, believing government should help ordinary people with the major problems of their lives, such as health care - and relishing his work in government.

Let's hope neither of them gives up any time soon. We need their views and their voices. And we need to include them in the debate