So far there is no clear winner for any party, though several that obviously are not going to win their nomination. The biggest test is still yet to come since the waters are so murky. We shall see.
As to who should be allowed into the debates at any given time. I would agree with those who say any party sponsored debate should include all candidates from that party, but the situation in NH was a forum and debates set up by private, although news, organizations. Those organizations have the right to set the criteria for any debate or forum they chose to have. As independent, private organizations they have the freedom to include or exclude anyone they chose, just like any private company or individual has the right to determine who they will hire or hang out with. The fact they were news organizations does not change that fact, in my opinion. Plus I think the criteria they set for the debate was fair and open. The fact that some candidates did not meet the criteria does not change the validate of the debate.
p.s. I watched part of a Ron Paul speech on CSPAN last night, I do agree with a lot of what he has to say, but I think he speaks of an ideal world that will never be a reality, as much as I wish it would become one.
My response (since you’re obviously speaking to me here):
1. FOX News, ABC News, WMUR, etc. are private corporations. They can include or exclude whoever they want, whether the rules are fair or not.
2. I think ABC’s criteria were fair, and FOX … I dunno. They were tight-lipped about it.
3. I have no desire to have the government (or anybody) force FOX, ABC, etc. to include all the candidates.
4. I think that FOX, ABC, etc. did the candidates and the people a disservice by excluding candidates this early in the game. IA, WY, and NH send approximately 2.5% of the total delegates to the Republican convention. There is no way, even after the the NH vote, that we know who is going to end up with the nomination, even despite the fact that plenty of short-sighted thick-skulled morons are busy switching teams right now to McCain on the basis of the vote of a state smaller than my big toe. Heck, last time around he won NH too and lost the nomination. And … I say this as a person who sort of likes McCain (but wouldn’t vote for him).
5. Since I think FOX & ABC did a disservice by excluding people (with fair criteria or otherwise) I criticized them and wrote them letters complaining, and wrote letters thanking the people who stood up publically and agreed with me.
6. The criteria has nothing to do with the validity of the debates. They were still valuable … I just think they would have been more valuable with the whole slate of candidates.
7. If they’d eliminated folks after Super Tuesday, I wouldn’t feel like they’d done as much of a disservice, but I still wouldn’t have been happy about it.
Re: Ron Paul … I think everybody’s foreign policy is idealistic to some degree. I guess it’s a matter of what we find more realistic.
About Ron Paul, I don’t mean just his foreigh policy. I think all his veiws are utopian in scope and would only work if all people were good honest people. We know that’s not the case so…
OK … so what’s an example of one of his non-foreign policy views that you find too utoptian to work in the real world?
I tell you what, you name one and will explain why his ideas are utopian.
Note: I beleive his ideas would work if all people were good honest people. Society makes us conform to certain rules because they place a stigma on certain actions. If you leave people to their own devices they would begin to do as they liked without regard to their fellow citizens, because people’s natural inclination is to self-service.
Well, you are the one who said his views were utopian, so I figured that you wouldn’t have any trouble choosing one.
OK, let’s talk about sound money then … which is a biggie for me. What about, say, having money backed by gold and/or silver (which really isn’t his view, but probably the easiest way to put it into terms that make it easy to talk about) requires all people to be good, honest people? I’ll submit that any monetary system requires good, honest people, because the changes of counterfeit units always exists, but I don’t see that as being any more or less likely in any system.
Or … his views on immigration, which essentially boil down to the fact that part of the reason illegal immigration is so enticing to people in Mexico is that the government provides or subsidizes services here that are in some way available to even non-citizens (education, medical care, etc.) that aren’t available back home … and that we could be doing more to prevent illegal immigration.
As an addendum … Ron Paul’s positions on sound money and border security/immigration reform in his own words:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/131/amnesty-and-the-welfare-state/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/131/amnesty-and-the-welfare-state/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/inflation-tax/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/227/monetary-policy-is-critically-important/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/226/inflation-alive-and-well/
I agree that conterfeit money is likely in all systems. But if the entire world were good honest people then they would not think to counterfeit at all so it wouldn’t matter what monetary system we use. As to immigration, we are the most powerful nation in the world, and the richest also. The problem isn’t our system it is the lack of opprotunities in their system that needs to be addressed. Until the economies of their countries are stabilized so there are equal opprotunites there as there are in America we will have a problem with immigration policy.