The tipping point with me as to Ron Paul’s viability for the Presidency is this: his incessant “blame America” side jostling. We’ve got a lot of problems, as does the rest of the world, but Ron Paul’s ideas, when examined beyond the surface emotional appeal of some (“I support the Constitution” sounds great but it’s more important to know what he actually means as to how that support would be applied and similar exercises about other statements he’s made and performance record in Congress — so far, the state of Texas isn’t looking too exemplary as to that Constitution thing), are found to be, just under the surface, dubious, suggestive of a self-perishing sink while abandoning reason like someone standing in a rowboat on a big lake filled with hideous water and pushing from side to side with each leg, one at a time: do you really want to go there or are you just testing the waters and the boat to see how soon you’ll sink and what your situation will be after immersion in that bleak pool? And is it necessary to blame the boat manufacturer for the state of the water? Or your actions in the boat?
Paul offers a lot of emotional appeal to those who are predisposed or easily encouraged to blame the ‘manufacturer of the boat’ for the state of the infectious characteristics of the water, but, is it really the answer to all areas of the survival and safe passage of our nation to hold us responsible for all that crud that is both in the water and attempts to flood the boat? And to help it do so?
Worse, the Paul Boaters yell at anyone who attempts to offer them safer waters, suggestions as to possibly doing something else than standing up and doing that side-to-side jeopardy dance. At least Paul received a realistic response (“booh, booooh, booh,” etc.) from the crowd at his latest Sink-the-Boat comments, and I refer to the Miami so-called “Spanish” “language” GOP Presidential Candidates’ so-called “debate” from this past Sunday evening.
I thought this latest so-called “debate” could be reduced to one word: “pandering.”
And about that, I agree with Tom Tancredo (that it was “pandering“) for the very same reasons Tancredo described it as such:
“It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language,” Tancredo said in a release Friday. “So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate?”
…”Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual, but it has perilous consequences for a nation,” Tancredo said. “As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign.”
Where’s the Russian debate? Where’s the Swedish debate, the Icelandic debate, the German debate and Nairobi debate? Where’s the Australian Aborigine debate, the Japanese and Korean debate?
The point is, this is the United States, English is our language required for to become a naturalized citizen (and which is otherwise natively spoken, read and used in general by those of us born here, as it is pervasive throughout our government and society, and, nation’s history and legacy of history and documentation). The office of the President requires citizens to vote for any candidate inorder to win that office (and to continue to function in it).
Thus, what we witnessed was not a “debate” but a theatrical performance for people (and, therefore, governments) of other nations — so call it what it is (was) and not what it is (was): foreign interests in the future of the United States applying ethnic testing and pressure to U.S. Presidential politics.
Just because a community has a large population of one ethnicity or race or another isn’t any reason to alter the terms of our nation’s government (specifically, as to voting, as to citizenship and legal residency, as to civic responsibilities, in other words, of those entrusted with the care and management of the nation). And if a person in the U.S. isn’t fluent in English, sufficient enough to understand public statements, announcements, read what’s written about them, then, they are more than likely either not able to vote (legitimately) nor does it matter whether they are “Hispanic” or from Latvia or some as-yet undiscovered island near Antartica (or anywhere else non-specific to the U.S. as to their citizenship).
I felt the very same way about the Democrats’ so-called “Spanish” so-called “debate” from a while ago, but at least the GOP candidates behaved themselves moreso than did the Democrats in their earlier theatrical production. But both are pandering and Tancredo is quite right about that.
And the full array of candidates with the exception of Tancredo — who was not there — Hunter and Thompson — who are not likely to win the nomination — and Romney — whose course if yet to be determined — the full array of candidates pander to the fiction that is performance: they aren’t being straight with voters (already understood to be McCain’s situation but now also perhaps that of Huckabee‘s, while Giuliani’s long been questionable as to immigration enforcement and border security and by that, also, then, national security; despite the bluster from most of them otherwise, their records on illegal immigration prove them to be manipulators of the voters’ trust on this key issue and so they continue to engage in the campaign blustery and pandering, saying — now, during campaigning — that they’ll secure our borders and seek enforcement of our laws as to those who enter and/or remain in our country illegally, but it continues to emerge that mere ethnicity and economics are incentives to certain candidates such as Giuliani, Huckabee and McCain and they pursue this way of denial inorder to gain illicit votes and ethnic support — otherwise, what’s with the “Spanish” language thing and the rickety performance from Sunday).
On this issue, the GOP is dancing with the Democrats and some of them are not dancing with the voter majority in the U.S. If they were (dancing with us), neither party would be engaging in these alleged “debates” in Spanish and parsing their words on every single statement about illegal aliens to avoid the word, “deportation” while coming up with every possible rubric for the word, “amnesty” so they can literally say they don’t support it because they don’t use that word while actually seeking to establish that very thing. I guess the plan is, “only for Hispanics” or, if you’re Spanish-speaking and illegal, certain candidates will find a way to write a new dictionary to omit certain words that “offend” your next deli order of citizenship with or without pickels. Sorry, people of Madagascar or wherever else, you aren’t “Hispanic,” you have to apply for citizenship right where you are and not loiter illegally in the U.S. awaiting special tweaks of the laws and political speech otherwise that twists conditions to suit Hispanic ethnicity.
More frightening, in my view, is that Paul sounds all too similar to Fidel Castro (“bad America!” to sum them both up) and Hugo Chavez (“America’s imperialistic and it’s bad, send more gifts from Bolivia, Venezuela will help!”).
Following the example set by the King of Spain, if I’d been in the audience at this latest so-called, alleged “debate,” I’d have been tempted to shout, “shut up!”
Another false, stupid and misleading headline:
“GOP Hopefuls Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk”
And here I thought they were campaiging for the President of the United States of America, as representatives of enforcement of our laws, honoring and upholding the Oath of Office, serving the voters.