The George Bush of 2000

I recently read Ron Paul's book The Revolution: A Manifesto. It's a great book that I think everyone should read. The second chapter focuses on foreign policy. One page that stood out for me contains a couple of quotes from George W. Bush from a debate with Al Gore in the year 2000. Paul quotes Bush on foreign policy:

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.' ...I think one way for us to end up being viewed as 'the ugly American' is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way; so should you.'"

...

"Somalia started off as a humanitarian mission and changed into a nation-building mission... And that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation building.' ... I think what we need to do is to convince the people who live in the lands [themselves] to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here-we're going to have kind of a 'nation-building corps' from America?"

...

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble."

I didn't pay attention to the Presidential race back then so I don't remember what type of platform Bush ran on. Although I do like what he said above, I was shocked to read it. How different is that than the actions taken over the past 8 years? Of course, you can argue that "9/11 changed everything", and I can definately understand the concern after what happened in that tragic event. But didn't our nation go way beyond what was justifyable in its response? Under Bush, we became all the things that he said in 2000 that we should not become.

Paul goes into much greater detail about his reasons for a non-interventionalist foreign policy. It is a policy that was once advocated by traditional conservatives. Now, however, Republicans have become "The War Party". If the party could return to its roots, I might be able to refer to myself proudly as a Republican. At this point, however, third-party candidates seem to be the most attractive option.

In Today's News

Mrs. Pelosi continues to build her rep as a great speaker of the house. The article begins:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.

Many comments below that article saying she should step down, I tend to agree. And while this further solidifies my already present disdain for Pelosi, this issue is just one of many we have become accustomed to hearing about our politicians. Current administration on both sides is making it a better time than ever to be an independent. The term "Republicrats" is becoming more and more applicable. What are the current approval ratings? Something like 30% for Bush and 10% for Congress? How do we keep getting duped into electing people we don't like? Could it be that we are so trained into thinking that there are always really only going to be two options, and that any other vote will not matter? That mentality needs to stop. Fortunately I think there are many people who feel the same way, and the independent movement is growing. I for one don't think either Obama or McCain are going to bring about real "change" in Washington, unless bailouts of Wall Street with taxpayers' money, an unnecessary presence in countries all over the world, huge amounts of government spending, and an unsustainable budget deficit are "change". I previously was trying to decide between not voting, or figuring out which of the two major candidates is the "worst of two evils". I have since changed my thinking. I have heard about so many people who do not actually like either candidate in this race and yet will end up "settling". But it is because of a mentality like prevents independent candidates from becoming a viable possibility. Perhaps it is not the people who are "wasting their vote" on an independent candidate that we need to be angry about, but those who are allowing a system of two bad choices to continue by supporting one of them.

My friend David Carlson has more on this subject. An excerpt:

It is important to note that our political system will not change if people who are not happy with a candidate and STILL chooses to vote for them. The precedent they are setting is one of indifference to those individuals opinions, as politicians and parties will figure they have your vote no matter what because the only other alternative is a more conservative/liberal candidate.