Last week, the Statesman issued endorsements for Barack Obama and John McCain for the primary elections, in which New York heads to the polls on Feb. 5. If you’re registered Democrat, I agree that Barack Obama would be the best bet out of the candidates that are still running.
If you’ve listened to the candidates’ speeches or watched the debates, you’ll hear the word “change” thrown around a lot.
In Clinton’s case, I think she’s saying this to sound like an “agent of change” but in reality, she represents the “old guard” of politician; willing to sacrifice pretty much anything for power. While Hillary might make for a decent President, I see her as way too comfortable with the lobbyists and corporate sponsors to truly represent the people. She’s come too close to too many scandals, and while she hasn’t been directly linked, it’s a little too close for comfort. The only thing dirty about Obama’s past is some drug use, which I think we can all forgive, and a brief touch with some dirty-dealing landlord. However, I find the link between Rezko and Obama tenuous at best, and exactly the sort of thing the Clintons would hype in their game of dirty politics. I see Obama as a unifier, a person who can reach across party and national lines, in eloquent and inspiring speeches. And although I don’t agree with some of his policy, I trust that he would be a good leader, and someone who would listen to the people to make our nation a better place. I cannot say the same about John McCain. With a platform centered on the Iraq War and a hawkish foreign policy, Sen. McCain is not a man who can dig us out of our current economic crises. We need a President who truly understands the economy and the affect that everything from foreign to fiscal policy has on the economy. Ron Paul has studied and written books on the economy. He understands that our foreign exploits overseas is not sustainable for economic growth. Dr. Paul’s policies call for the government to come in line with the constitution, and points out that many of the policies and tactics currently used by the government are unconstitutional and limit our freedoms. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, points out Paul, and not the economy. The role of government is to provide a stable monetary system based on solid capital. The current activities of the Federal Reserve and the IRS do not conform to these high standards. By allowing the free market to control fiscal policy, we can give power over the economy back to the people and not corrupt politicians. Dr. Paul has the most logical foreign policy of any candidate in either party. You can’t expect to maintain an empire overseas, says Paul. Every empire in history has failed, from the Ancient Greeks to the British. In order to maintain support for troops, the government has to weaken the money system, printing money which causes inflation.
We currently have troops stationed in over 130 countries, and a dollar that is weakening. Our current exploits in the Middle East is increasing the cost of oil which makes goods more expensive. With high inflation, unemployment rising and the value of the dollar weakening, this is a recipe for economic disaster. Yet, the current administration still has no problem with borrowing money from the Chinese in order to fund the war. Paul’s policies are considered “radical” by the mainstream, but clearly the definition of this word has changed over the years. Paul’s libertarian conservative policies are taken directly from the constitution, and he understands that only a strict adherence to the constitution is the only way to save our great nation. I think Barack Obama would make a great leader, but only Paul’s vision of the United States returning to a constitutional Republic, is a sensible policy for the next President of the United States to have.
