I haven't been reading many political news columns for a while, so I have been catching up with a few of the columnists that I used to read regularly.
Michael Barone is very impressive when he talks the numbers of elections. I'd almost bet that he could tell you, off the top of his head, who your congressional district voted for for president in every one of the presidential elections in, at least, the last 50 years.
While reading his past columns I came across these two "Bachmann Shows Why She's The Straw Poll Favorite" and "Debate Leaves Republican Field Unaltered."
They've reminded me why I would have liked to vote for Michele Bachmann.
A quote from the second article:
"It's the latest iteration of the
old argument between purists who vote no down the line — as Bachmann did
on every bill that would have raised the federal debt limit — and those
who make some adjustments in order to get what they consider worthwhile
I guess that that makes me a purist. Since learning that Paul Ryan was in support of TARP, I've felt better about our politicians after reading columns about Michele Bachmann.
For the record:
Had you asked me, before anyone had declared themselves for the republican nomination, I would have told you that I would have wanted to see Booby Jindal, current Governor of Louisiana, elected president. (I have not researched his record, but I have heard nothing but good things about his state since he was elected; excepting hurricanes and oil spills, of course.)
Had you asked me the same question while the candidates were announcing their candidacy, I would have told you that I liked Michele Bachmann best and Herman Cain second. (Herman Cain used to write one of those political columns that I was a regular reader of. Even though it may be near blasphemy to say it: I seem to remember liking some of his columns even better than the columns written that same week by esteemed economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.)
All of this would have been my thoughts before Ms. Bachmann's and Mr. Cain's campaigns ended.
I voted for Ron Paul in the republican primaries of 2008 and 2012. Despite, or so I thought at the time, his position on foreign policy I voted for him in the primary in 2008 because I preferred him to McCain, and they were the only ones on the ballot and still running by the time the Wisconsin primary came around. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary of 2012 because, once again, I had the choice of him or another RINO.
Sometime after the primary I bought "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom" by Dr. Paul. I don't know why I happened to buy it, I may have even meant to buy something else. But after reading it I changed my mind politically, for the first time ever. (It didn't hurt, despite my suspicions of such beforehand.) I found that his foreign policy positions made absolute sense, whereas I questioned them before. I always agreed with his domestic positions before reading the book, but now I know why he has the most loyal followers. And were he to run again, I would count myself among them.
I recently read the comments on another blog where everyone was directed to a quiz to see which candidate their views most matched. (my results: Ron Paul 98% agreement, Gary Johnson 97%, Mitt Romney 40%, The rent is too d*mn high guy about 35%, and Obama 4%) Many of the commenters found that their positions most matched Ron Paul's but they said that they would never vote for him.
After reading Liberty Defined, my dad said something to the effect of, "Why doesn't everyone agree with him?"
If you do not like him, ask yourself why. Then do the research to see if what it is you dislike about him is true. I'll bet you that it is not. And furthermore, no other politician has been as honest and correct on the issues in our lifetimes.
I suggest that everyone read this book. It is about the only one that has ever changed my mind about anything.