By Daniel Bein
It was suggested to me recently that Ron Paul and his supporters should "hang it up". The reason given was that Paul is not taken seriously, and has no hope of winning. It was also suggested that he is a poor debater and doesn't come off as strong strong like the other candidates.
In my opinion, this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKjhNa6PGLk of Paul proves that he does, in fact, come across as strong. Not by puffing out his chest and pretending to be a straight talking tough guy like the other candidates, but by making sense. When the Fox News anchor asks if Paul feels he has "any electability", Paul's response is strong. He asks why he should be considered unelectable by Republicans when he is the only one who defends their true platform
Still, many say that he can't win and that he doesn't matter. Like John McCain they snicker at him like children. Or lob false charges of racism at him. And they say we should hang it up.
Should we hang it up? Should we phone it in and go home? Should we throw away our vote on someone who is wrong because we think they have a better chance of winning. I think not.
I don't believe that voting for someone who "can't win" is throwing your vote away. Throwing your vote away is voting for the wrong candidate just because you think they can win.
--Daniel Bein
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Initial thoughts on the Iowa caucus and role the media plays in misleading the public
By Daniel Bein
The first story I read on CNN.com the day after the Iowa Caucus was pretty typical. The usual evaluations of the results were offered. But what stood out to me was that the authors, Alan Silverleib and Mark Preston, claimed that Ron Paul, among others, had been "slaughtered". The other "slaughtered" candidates he was compared to received 2% or even 0% of the vote. Ron Paul got 10%, beating supposed "top tier" candidate Rudy Giuliani by 6%. This was ignored by the author, and Ron Paul was once again cast in with those who received an insignificant portion of the vote.
" Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have bowed out gracefully, while New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Duncan Hunter continue their quests after getting slaughtered in Iowa."
This is simply the authors' way of saying that candidates who aren't corporate darlings should not even bother running. Silverleib and Preston seem to be suggesting that Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have retained their dignity by "bowing out gracefully" while Paul, Hunter and Richardson are making fools out of themselves and continuing a silly and ill fated quest.
This is, of course, typical of the mainstream media. They marginalize certain candidates and pre-ordain others as the front runners. It is ridiculous and it is bad journalism. But with the media being almost completely under the control of greedy corporations, I suppose I'm pointing out the obvious.
Here is a link to the full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/04/iowa.analysis/index.html
-Daniel Bein
The first story I read on CNN.com the day after the Iowa Caucus was pretty typical. The usual evaluations of the results were offered. But what stood out to me was that the authors, Alan Silverleib and Mark Preston, claimed that Ron Paul, among others, had been "slaughtered". The other "slaughtered" candidates he was compared to received 2% or even 0% of the vote. Ron Paul got 10%, beating supposed "top tier" candidate Rudy Giuliani by 6%. This was ignored by the author, and Ron Paul was once again cast in with those who received an insignificant portion of the vote.
" Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have bowed out gracefully, while New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Duncan Hunter continue their quests after getting slaughtered in Iowa."
This is simply the authors' way of saying that candidates who aren't corporate darlings should not even bother running. Silverleib and Preston seem to be suggesting that Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have retained their dignity by "bowing out gracefully" while Paul, Hunter and Richardson are making fools out of themselves and continuing a silly and ill fated quest.
This is, of course, typical of the mainstream media. They marginalize certain candidates and pre-ordain others as the front runners. It is ridiculous and it is bad journalism. But with the media being almost completely under the control of greedy corporations, I suppose I'm pointing out the obvious.
Here is a link to the full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/04/iowa.analysis/index.html
-Daniel Bein
Sunday, January 6, 2008
What is a left conservative?
By Daniel Bein
"It may yet take an alchemy of Left and Right to confound the corporate center."
--Norman Mailer
To some, "left conservative" may seem like a contradiction in terms. This was my first thought when I first heard the term about five years ago. But, over time it has become apparent to me that this term is very valid and worth considering. I adhere to many conservative principals such as limited government, low taxes, the Constitution and states rights while at the same time holding beliefs that have been traditionally associated with the left, such as opposing the death penalty and protecting the environment. For this reason identifying myself as either a straight left wing liberal or a right wing conservative cannot be totally accurate.
I am also by no means a moderate or a centrist. I consider my views to be anything but moderate. I am fervent in my belief that freedom from intrusive government and respect for individual rights is paramount. And I refuse to accept the fact that compromising one's principals is ever the answer. For these reasons I feel more comfortable identifying myself as a "left conservative" than anything else. My friend, Dylan Hales (who I am co-authoring this blog with), will most likely offer a far more in depth analysis once he starts posting.
It was Norman Mailer who coined the term "left conservative" and he explains it better than I could in this interview with "The American Conservative" from 2002:
http://www.amconmag.com/2002/2002_12_02/mailer.html
Thanks for reading,
Daniel Bein
"It may yet take an alchemy of Left and Right to confound the corporate center."
--Norman Mailer
To some, "left conservative" may seem like a contradiction in terms. This was my first thought when I first heard the term about five years ago. But, over time it has become apparent to me that this term is very valid and worth considering. I adhere to many conservative principals such as limited government, low taxes, the Constitution and states rights while at the same time holding beliefs that have been traditionally associated with the left, such as opposing the death penalty and protecting the environment. For this reason identifying myself as either a straight left wing liberal or a right wing conservative cannot be totally accurate.
I am also by no means a moderate or a centrist. I consider my views to be anything but moderate. I am fervent in my belief that freedom from intrusive government and respect for individual rights is paramount. And I refuse to accept the fact that compromising one's principals is ever the answer. For these reasons I feel more comfortable identifying myself as a "left conservative" than anything else. My friend, Dylan Hales (who I am co-authoring this blog with), will most likely offer a far more in depth analysis once he starts posting.
It was Norman Mailer who coined the term "left conservative" and he explains it better than I could in this interview with "The American Conservative" from 2002:
http://www.amconmag.com/2002/2002_12_02/mailer.html
Thanks for reading,
Daniel Bein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
