The Paul-Palin Ticket - Why It's a Bad Idea
Paul & Palin - Can You Say Oxymoron?
I want to make it clear, that I do feel that to have opposites between vice president and president, can bring a fair bite of balance to the top seats of our government. Though in the case of having Ron Paul and Sarah Palin as Pres and Vice Pres, I think we'd be looking at a big oxymoron, not a balanced set of opposites.
It was recently found that in Sarah Palin's emails, several people were pressuring her to run with Ron Paul in 2012, instead of running for president herself. It's also been endorsed by a few constituents who somehow feel it would be a good idea. Now, I'm not sure if those people were looking to hurt Ron Paul's campaign, or if this was their vote of confidence that Ron Paul will win and that Palin would be much better to run with him and not against him, but either way I think it would be a bad idea for both of them.
So why wouldn't a Paul-Palin match be a good idea? Let's look at the differences that really make a difference:
Palin - is pro-war. She supports Isreal on just about every topic (so do most of the corrupt republicans currently in office). She has consistently said that she would totally support our unnecessary overseas war, so long as Obama declared it an official war and helped Isreal. She also supports having bases all over, sticking with NATO and increasing the already bloated defense spending budget.
Paul - Supports non-interventionism, which basically means that he votes for a good defense over a strong offense. He wants to bring home all of our troops, end our unnecessary military occupations in other countries and he wants drastically cut the "defense" budget (especially since it isn't spent on defending American....).He also feels that it's in violation of human rights to go out and practice target shooting with drone plains and that we don't need to be supporting other nations (such as Isreal, Libya or Iran) with taxpayer money. To make the package even sweeter, his vote is to get out of NATO and the UN, which have so far treated us like their military pawns and piggy banks.
The Second Amendment:
Palin - She feels that the right to bear arms stops after handguns. So basically, she feels that your second amendment right should be limited to arms that would make no difference if the tyrants were to really come knocking at your door....
Paul - Dr. No says a resounding yes to the second amendment, as he is a staunch supporter of the constitution. He feels that the right to bear arms is what gives liberty it's teeth and keeps the government from overstepping it's bounds even further than it already has. What good is it to have hand guns in the face of automatic rifles that can bend around corners?
Paul - He believes that it's none of the federal governments business who marries who, or whether it's man on man, woman on woman or a woman and a man. He has consistently voted against the federal government forming any decisions concerning marriage, as it is clearly an issue of separation between church and state. He has stated that he is not opposed to same-sex marriage, but that in protecting a persons right to marry who they want, we need to uphold the constitution, which doesn't give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. So basically, he's for the 10th amendment - it should be up to each state and it's people to legalize, ban or stay neutral on the issue.
Palin - supports banning gay marriage and everything to do with it.
Palin - feels that we should invest even more in big oil, even after the recent disasters that have taken place. She even proposes that big oil should be allowed to drill in wild life refuges.
Paul - He feels that if we stop giving big oil tax breaks, hold the accountable for everything they do and stop giving consumer cuts to petroleum products on a federal level, that other forms of alternative fuel and resources would become more competitive. He feels that hemp, sugar cane and any other form of alternative energy should have an equal shot in the economy, and that big oil shouldn't be favored by big government.
Paul - you could pretty much consider him to be a history expert, and I wouldn't be surprised if this American history geek could pass any test on any part of the constitution and it's making. Paul is very vocal about his support of the constitution.
Palin - Though she has clearly been brushing up on her American history, but it's pretty clear that she either doesn't understand the constitution or doesn't care what it means. Not that many politicians do anymore.
The Drug War:
Palin - Mrs. Palin is a supporter of the drug war and feels we should spend more and do more to continue fighting the losing battle. She is against legalizing cannabis, even though she's smoked when Alaska legalized it. Though she feels that meth is a bigger problem.
Paul - Dr. Paul feels that the drug is a failure, and that though it can be sad to see a person waste their life on hard drugs, that it's not the federal governments job to regulate what people do. He feels that the drug war has failed, that it's crazy to prohibit cannabis and that we need to stop spending on the drug war ASAP.
Paul - Being a strict libertarian, Paul feels that the economy would best be helped if the government got the hell out of the way. Which would open up the chance for American's to seek the American dream once again. He feels that we could get there through cutting the defense budget drastically, not supporting other countries, ending the wars overseas, ending foreign dependence and by ending the federal reserves monopoly (which would bring back sound money). He is a clear supporter for lowering taxes, is absolutely against new taxes and wants to completely end many unconstitutional taxes already in place. He feels that if the economy were freer to do what it wanted, and didn't have the threat of a central banker controlled economic bubble, then it would pick itself up.
Palin - She wants lower oil prices and lower taxes, but hasn't suggested any ways of getting there. She talks about selling an uber expensive jet when she was governor and lowering property taxes in the state, but has yet to suggest she would do anything of the sort if she made it into the white house.
Palin - she has flip flopped on many issues in a very short amount of time. While governor, she didn't want to take federal stimulus, but allowed the feds to "bully" her into taking it, even though alaskans voted against it. She praised Bush's 700 Billion dollar stimulus bill, but insults Obama's $787 Billion dollar stimulus. She says she's pro-women and pro-choice, but votes against abortion. She wants lower taxes, but wants increased defense spending, more support (in cash) for Isreal, more spending on the drug war and more federal subsidies on oil. She says she's for the environment, but wants more oil drilling anywhere the oil is found. She's says she's pro-second amendment, but wants to add limitations.
Paul - Ron Paul has been voting the same and giving the same speeches for the last 30+ years. He's pro constitution, and feels that if it wasn't originally enumerated as the governments business, then it's none of the governments business. He's pro free market, has a plan to cut down on spending without raising the debt ceiling and wants to see American's civil liberties restored. He feels that Free-Market will bring the economy back, small government will save money and freedom, and that we should have sound money. I dare you to show me a time when he's flip flopped on his opinions.