CSPAN's Coverage of the Iowa Straw Poll

I watched the coverage from the time the event was just beginning in the auditorium. Of course there was an atmosphere of excitement in the building, there were a lot of motivated folks there to support their predetermined preferences.

My preference is of course Tom Tancredo. His message was very clear – stop immigration; preserve our heritage! Of course this is what appeals to me most about Tancredo, that he makes the linkage between our policy of open borders/easy citizenism, and the alarming rate at which we are losing our sense of who we are. And he does so without apology, as well he should in my opinion...

The coverage itself was left uncorrupted by a bunch of pundits giving their assessments of the individual candidates' messages. This I found to be extremely appealing because I'd really prefer to draw my own conclusions on each based on their individual messages, how well they delivered them, and so on and so forth.

Not that I haven't already determined who I like the best among the candidates, but there's something to be learned about them in the way that they deliver their messages. In the case of my preference (Tancredo), I thought he was less effective than he could have been with respect to the wider audience (those who decided to watch it with me on CSPAN) due to the fact that he kept stumbling over his words in what appeared to be a rush to get through his speech. Had Tancredo slowed down a bit in his delivery of the speech, I think it probably would have resonated more with the viewership, and/or, those who might watch the coverage at a later date. As far as his 4th place showing goes, I have a hard time believing he would have changed any votes with his delivery of the speech, irregardless of how good or bad it was.

As much as I would like for substance to rule the day over style, though; to govern one's own approach to the overall message offered of the individual candidates, I'm just not sure that people in general can separate style from substance. And I think this was the weakness in Tom's speech.

As far as Ron Paul goes, I understand that his wife had been hospitalized the day prior to the event, and that due to this fact he was rather exhausted. He did look a little tired, but as I've said before, I don't care for the libertarian underpinnings of his message. Were I capable of taking the messages in his speech at face value, I would say that Paul has a lot to offer. But since it's not possible for me to lay aside his other speeches and writings, and the underlying libertarian message that is always present therein, I'd have to say that Paul's speech appealed to me very little.

These are just a few of my thoughts as to what I witnessed during the coverage of the event which was strictly limited to that which was held in the auditorium. Any additional thoughts from those of you who watched the event with me?...

-DW

Read More

A Couple of Worthy Announcements

First of all let me thank both VA and John Savage for posting links to Webster's on their excellent blogs. And let me say again that if you've not yet visited them, which I trust most of you have, then please do. I assure you it will not be a wasted endeavor. You may find links to their blogs permanently posted in the right sidebar of this one. So there's no excuse for not visiting them.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that it is due in large part to their posting of the link to Webster's that this blog itself has enjoyed already a significant number of visits from folks who would otherwise not have come here. So once again my sincere thanks go out to both of them.

Second, I'd like to direct your attentions to the AFB, which itself has its own separate link provided in the right sidebar of this blog. You may use that link, or if you prefer you may use this one to go to the specific title to which I'm directing your attentions - Time to discharge your civic duty - posted by my friend, MT. And as he says: "what are you waiting for; go sign that petition!"

Third, and finally, CTO, why is the coding missing in the post section of the blog? Would you be so kind as to put it back in because at this moment I'm having to copy and paste it from other post titles, and I'm starting to get a little aggravated! Not to mention that as you know all too well, this necessity is eventually going to lead most likely to my messing something up real bad. ;) Please help.

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 1)

Up until just recently I had never heard the name Ron Paul before, or at least I don't recollect ever having heard it. And I really wonder whether a significant percentage of traditionalists had ever heard of this self-styled "champion of the Constitution" prior to that fateful moment when he and Guiliani famously butted heads back a few months ago.

Is Ron Paul who he says he is? Is he the man that others, advocates and adversaries, portray him to be? Can it truly be said of this Champion of the Constitution designate that he is indeed the foremost in that regard of all the presidential contenders? These I think are very relevant questions. And though I do not wish to detract in any way from the excellent work already done on the subject by others whom I highly respect, I should like to at least open an investigation independently done for my own personal purposes, as well as for those readers interested in learning more about the respective contenders perhaps having yet to discover certain already available means to assist them in that endeavor...

In doing so I eagerly invite and implore the readers of this entry (as well as others that will follow on the subject) to engage the conversation so as to inject some degree of proper balance into what in some instances may well amount to an actual misrepresentation of Paul's position on a given issue, and/or, a miscalculation on my part or the parts of others here engaging the conversation, of Rep. Paul's core principles and how they may be good or bad for the country, particularly if elected President, in our estimations.

To this point I have done some 'extensive' independent research on Ron Paul. And I've used various means provided and available to me from a variety of sources to assist me in doing so. Yet, I do not consider my investigation as yet to be anywhere close to exhaustive. Therefore, my approach to this question of "who is Ron Paul?," as regards this blog's purpose (contained in the left sidebar under the heading "blog description"), and as my mind foresees it, is likely going to consist of a 3, 4, perhaps even 5 part series on the subject, this post being the first in the series.

I don't want to put any firm number to it though because I'm simply not sure how many editions the series will ultimately prove to consist of beyond the absolute certainty I have that it will consist of more than this one; at very least two. Depending on the level of involvement from the readership among other variables not precisely predictable, certain questions might be raised which would require one or more additional posts than would be necessary or proper in the absence of those questions, concerns, refutations, or whatever. I will state, however, that while avoiding fixing a firm number to it, I will not allow the series to extend beyond a number of posts that I would loosely describe as a 'maximum,' it being my persuasion that a pretty thorough investigation of the whole view of the matter may be conducted within the confines of a 'high-end' number of posts. Anything over-and-above of which would most probably amount to little more than redundancy.

I should like to make clear as well that I do not intend to get to the meat of the question(s) in this post, as you discerning readers have probably already realized. I have chosen to open the conversation this way for a specific reason which I don't feel it necessary to share at this point. I imagine most of you can figure it out for yourselves anyhow, so there's really no need in my explaining it to you. However...

Being myself attached to the idea of 'capitalism' insofar as it adheres to a moral code of conduct inhibiting the tendency to excess, I own that I should like to utilize the principle to attract a wider readership via what I'm betting will be an increase in traffic to the blog given the level of interest in Paul's campaign. And incidentally, if you're feeling somewhat betrayed having now read this revelation of mine, I would simply remind you that neither is anyone forcing, nor is anyone even asking you to stick around if in fact you don't like what you see and read here. I would also point out that this is a more honest and a straight-forward approach than some bloggers would be willing to initiate. And I trust that most of you will see in this honest approach a quality that is somewhat endearing as well as perhaps refreshing. If not then I bid you a respectful and an affectionate farewell wishing you the best in your continued searches and pursuits on this as well as other subjects of interest. On the other hand, if you do in fact like what you read here and choose to stay around awhile, I welcome you with open arms to Webster's, as well as welcoming, as I said, your particular and unique input.

To close this installment of the series out let me say that I've been thinking on doing something of this sort for a couple of weeks now. Only over the last few days, however, have I put some serious thought to it, particularly as to how it might ultimately shape up. As I've said, I have some resources that I'm using to familiarize myself with Representative and Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, his history, his family, his philosophical approach to government, and so on and so forth. It will be from these sources primarily that my perspective on Mr. Paul's positions will be derived and offered to you in the series of posts forthcoming. And as I've already said, I encourage all of you to join in the discussion. This post is now entered into the record as part 1 in the series bearing the title "Who is this Ron Paul Character?" It is intended to get us thinking on the subject, as well as to finally initiate the somewhat belated process.

I shall now see it through to the end, and I hope you'll chime in...

-DW
Ron+Paul '08 elections president canidate news+and+politics

Read More

Where do the Candidates Stand?

Here's an informational site that's definately worth your time to visit: On the Issues. I ran across it while doing a search for information on Fred Thompson. Speaking of which, as I've shared with my brothers, Mike and Edmund, off blog, I happened to catch just a few minutes of an interview conducted with Fred on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" one night a few weeks ago. Sean Hannity conducted the interview.

Truthfully, I can't recall what about Thompson's responses to Hannity's questions left me with an overall feeling of 'this guy ain't impressing me' (perhaps he was too vague in his answers, or maybe he had some 'left-leaning' ideas that I picked up on; I just don't really recall to be honest.), but that's the feeling I came away with during the short time I half-heartedly listened to the interview.

To be fair, I should make it perfectly clear, if I haven't already, that I wasn't paying real close attention to the interview with Thompson. As I said, I just happened to catch the interview somewhere in the midst of it, and as I recall I was working on something else at that moment and Thompson failed to redirect my full attention away from my other work, and toward the interview.

I also understand that short interviews like that, due to the constraints of time and so forth, make it very difficult to get a clear picture of a candidate's stance on the numerous issues that are generally touched upon within the context of the interview itself, or to get a grasp on the candidate's command of a given subject, or the lack thereof. Not to mention that the interviewer himself is constrained in what questions to ask, how general or specific he may be, and so on and so forth due to the same time constraints.

So in essence what I'm saying is that though I came away from that interview with a general feeling of disappointment in Thompson's performance in a rather friendly atmosphere, given all the hype surrounding his possible candidacy, I also recollect that my attention was a bit distracted away from the interview at the time, which probably accounts for some of disappointedness I was left feeling. That probably doesn't speak very well of me and my ability to focus my undivided attention on something that warrants it, but I'm just being honest here, and I'm willing to take the risk of seeming a little scatter-brained at times. Indeed, I own that I am once in a while.

Notwithstanding that, the site that I provided the link to at the top of the post is indeed, as I said, worth your time to visit. The positions of all the candidates ('big boys' and 'little boys' alike) on all the major issues are provided under generalized headings for each individual candidate. Each candidate has his/her own page devoted to providing a record of their votes on specific issues and pieces of legislation under more generalized headings. A short synopsis is given of the paticular issue or legislation in question, along with the vote of the candidate in question. And a more detailed explanation of the candidate's position is further expounded upon by clicking on one of the links provided under each heading.

Here's a sample randomly chosen from Fred Thompson's page:

Fred Thompson on Abortion

Click here for 6 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

• Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
• Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
• Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Hope y'all get some good use out of the site...

Read More