Unfortunately the assassination of Bhutto raises a concern.

A guy with a gun and a bomb just killed the most electable moderate candidate, moderate by George Bush US State Department standards anyway. Makes me recall Robert Kennedy back in the ’60s. Anyway, folks around where I live believe these jihadist guys are ruthless and we, the United States of America, need to show them that we can be ruthless too. Most of our presidential candidates are selling this message, and judging by the polls the message sells.

Guliani’s attack on Ron Paul’s “blowback” comment during the televised debates is still being replayed on radio and television as the high point of Guliani’s election campaign.

Being “badder than the bad guys” may not be an entirely workable plan if you also want to work within the confines of the US Constitution but it feels good to folks like me in the same way that it is satisfying to watch a Death Wish or Die Hard movie. Ron Paul’s message would be in a different movie genre, more like Revenge of the Nerds, where, we still win but nobody gets killed.

I think most folks just don’t quite understand the dynamics of the local power the fundamentalist jihadist’s are tapping into. Folks around where I live still think We, the United States of America, can, and should, enforce our will on the forces of evil in the world through military force. They also think we need to prove our ability to do this. Victory, at whatever cost, in Iraq is important. I don’t necessarily disagree. Folks feel personally empowered when voting for a Guliani-McCain-Romney-Huckabe-Thompson-Clinton-Obama candidate who will promise to deliver this victory.

The problem is, this is not a movie. What the above mentioned candidates don’t acknowledge is that supporting a top down, central government power approach will not succeed. We do not need to overthrow entire governments to defeat radical Islamic elements. We just need to stop providing fertile ground for the Islamic Jahidsts to plant their seeds.

Ron Paul’s constitutional, states rights, bottom up, view of political power is actually a better counter attack on the radical elements in the middle east and other regions. The United States of America is a “Brand”, in a marketing sense. If that brand represents intervention in foreign politics for US corporate gain it will not sell to the local folks in Pakistan or any Middle East country. In fact, it will undermine any effort by the people of the United States. Lead by example is Congressman Paul’s message. If we can’t live by our own constitution, how can we expect the people of other nations to take us seriously?

The Ron Paul campaign does not derive its support from the power of his personality or his name recognition. His power does not come from a well organized, top down organization or movement. It isn’t that he has promised some benefit to a large block of voters with a common need that can only be provided by a central government.

Ron Paul’s promise is to stop using the power of a central government to impose his, or anyone else’s, personal values on the rest of the nation.

The best pollsters admit they can’t measure Ron Paul’s support because a significant part of it comes from people who have not voted before or from people who have been disaffected by the political process in the past. Ron Paul’s campaign admits they don’t have control of a large number of the people who support him. The Zogby pollsters expect Ron Paul to do better in the elections than their poll numbers indicate. It isn’t the man; it is his message that appeals to those who support him. It is what he stands for that is empowering his supporters. For the most part it is his commitment to the Constitution of the United States and its amendments.

The Ron Paul aberration may be confounding to the powers that be in the United States government, his support may be irritating and unexplainable to news commentators, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if our enemies hiding in the hills of Pakistan had to face the same political aberration in the streets of Pakistan?

Die Antwort auf die zwei Fragen versuche ich zu finden schon seit längerer Zeit. Vieleicht wird mit Deine Antwort verhelfen meine eigene Meinung über diese Themen zu bilden. Momentan ist es so, dass ich sowohl von Google als auch von Wikipedia begeistert bin. Die Gründe: Google haben ja zwei mathematische Genies gegründet und Wikipedia ist ein Projekt das von einem Millionär geschaffen wurde um Wissen zu verbreiten und nicht nur Kohle zu verdienen.
Auf Dein Kommentar würde ich mich freuen.

Too bad. All that mischief more-than-likely brought about… by our government’s paying blood money to a dictator… ostensibly, to keep nukes out of the “wrong” hands… but also, of course, to command and control “our intelligence asset” in the region, General Musharraf.

Bhutto was seen as a threat to that overwrought arrangement, especially since she probably would have been popularly elected.

So much for democracy.

Anyway, congratulations on a nicely-crafted article - Dr. Paul’s views have indeed been vindicated. His was the only intelligent response I heard from ANY of the candidates, after-the-fact of this barbarous incident!

But now the encirclement of Iran still continues, doesn’t it? And the stupid war games go on-and-on.

How dare those pesky Iranian evil-doers not accept our counterfeit dollars!

(Gollumm, gollumm…nasty Paulsies screwing up our plans, they is, messing with our precious SYSTEM! We HATES them!! WE HATES THEM FOREVER! Good Smeagol wants to HELP them, he does, but they doesn’t TRUST us, Gollum, thinks we is tricksy they does! Oh, poor, poor Smeagol! We is losing the precious!! aahhhkggk…)

Go Dr. Paul 2008
We need the doctor more than ever.

A humble president will be a nice change. Go RP.

RP08