Washington File

Hey Rob Weafer, first of all Ron Paul's strategy isnt blunt. Why? well Iraq is already a killing field its just that mainstream media doesnt report it. Just read "The Mess They Made" By Canadian Author Gwynne Dyer and when it comes to the IRS and the american income tax. Well every dollar that is collected by the IRS is sent to pay off interest of the money that is borrowed by the American government from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private company created by the banking cartel in 1913 just watch "American Freedom To Fascism" by Aaron Russo, its free on youtube.

Rob Weafer: your understanding of Paul's ideas and economics in general are misinformed. His ideas come from Economic theories that have been proven over and over. Read Hayek's Road to Serfdom and you might understand where his ideas come from. Compare the economies of Ireland and France for an interesting comparison. An artificially devalued currency is dangerous for many reasons. Plus, as far as Iraq goes, the U.S cannot afford to be there much longer anyway.

Ron Paul is not say anything new but certainly new on the candidate circuit. Also, he has some absolutely bizarre and poorly thought out ideas about everything and nows how to push buttons. He relies heavily on 70's style monetarism and speaks like he is still living in that time where the government was printing money to handle debt, inflation was out of control and jobs were scarce. (Inflation is currently less than 4% in the US and Canada, an unbelievable feat of fiscal control and touted as ideal in an expanding free market by most economists. Zero inflation =zero growth and ironically considered a form of economic stringency similar to communism.) Inflation is the naturally occurring wiggle room in the economy between wage and price tolerances and necessary if either is to change with desired growth.

Bizarrely, again, he would also like to pack up and leave Iraq wholesale without any thought to the obvious killing fields that would result without a measured exit and continued arms-length support and involvement at humanitarian and military/intelligence levels. He has also said in the past that he would like to do away with government budgets, income tax and the IRS which to me smacks of roadside tent politicking and promise making , a patently blunt strategy in getting noticed.

If not for his Mormon background Romney would probably already be the front-runner in the Republican race. Since there is a lot of antipathy between evangelical christians and Mormons he might have a tougher time securing the Republican nomination than winning the presidential election.

Victoria Rob...THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one! Ron Paul is the only candidate out there not part of the status quo...one of the "party elite". A candidate with ideas for REAL substantial change! I may loose my Federal job and have to go to the private sector...but the prospect of getting rid of our "nanny" state just tickles me silly!

Mahalo Rob

Aloha

A small note of correction for William MacKenzie. Our first Catholic prime minister was Sir John Thompson, not Sir John Abbott, and Thompson did indeed serve as the head of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister from 1892 to 1894 in the interregnum after Sir John A. Macdonald's death. Our first elected Catholic Prime Minister was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1896. Laurier was one of a succession of French Catholic Quebecois, representing over one-third of all Canadian voters, engaged in coalition-building with English leaders, and these geographic and demographic factors translated into the political arena probably account for our much earlier acceptance of a Catholic national leader. It was more like the North-South political and geographical divide in the United States than it was a clear religious issue. There was plenty of anti-Catholic prejudice in Canada when Laurier was elected, but like Kennedy did later, Laurier attempted to distance himself from the political aspects of the Church enough to placate Protestants without alienating his Catholic voter base.

As far as I know, none of these large-scale political considerations apply in Mr. Romney's case! U. S. voters will simply have to decide if his religious affiliation really matters to them.

There are plenty of rational people who believe in god. Maybe not a bearded old man who lives in the sky, but god. Pierre Trudeau, was a staunch catholic, and think what you will about him, you can concede that the man was rational.

Does it matter?

Will anyone of them represent the interests of the layperson...doubtful.

The corporations holding the purse strings are where the real power remains...just ask Haliburton.

Which Mitt Romney ar you talking about? This man is a basket case of multiple personalities.

To be perfectly frank, Thompson (along with McCain, who sells himself out to Bush after being stabbed in the back) is far too old to be President. Some might argue that that isn't the case, and cite Reagan as an example. While Reagan, like Thompson, was old and couldn't really act he did some degree of charm that people liked. Thompson is about as engaging as a blank piece of paper.

Romney simply will not get the nomination. His being a Morman does not play well especially with strong Republican bases such as Evangelical Christians. He may have fought against gay marriage, but Republicans might also look at that loss as a sign of weakness.

There are no strong candidates from either party. Someone like Ron Paul stands out to people, but as a staunch libertarian, the country would be in a state of complete individualism and citizens would have no social safety net.

The election is going to be like watching the Superbowl without your favorite teams and being very drunk at the same time:utterly painful.

Religion matters because it informs politicians' views of the issues. For historical reasons, Canadians may have warmed earlier than Americans to the idea of a Catholic head of state/government, but I doubt if Canadians would want their Catholic political leaders taking orders from the pope; a certain degree of independence from the Vatican, in fact, is a virtual prerequisite for holding national political office in Canada. It's the same with Romney. Until voters in the U.S. become comfortable with Mormonism, with how the Mormon faith informs the views of those who subscribe to it, and with how the LDS church relates to its politician members (and vice versa), a sizable number of them will (understandably)shy away from Mormon candidates for national political office.

Yo Henry
Can you spell Ron Paul?

Is there some kind of rule at the CBC against mentioning Ron Paul? The blatant media blackout of Ron Paul seems to be in effect here as well.

ron paul has an impeccable voting record? what, no on everything? i mean, that's why they call him Dr. No, isn't it?

thank you rob in victoria. i watch mainstream media in the u.s. every day & the name ron paul never comes up. thank god there are some good u.s. pbs sites. democracy now & free speech to mention a couple.

Victorian Rob: Thanks for your Ron Paul plug. You do have a point, though, in that the vast majority of candidates in the U.S. primaries are not letting their policies depart too far from the status quo.

Lance Low-blow: Please look up the word 'rational' in a dictionary. Personal experience and expected or probable outcomes are all valid rational arguments. There are plenty of rational theists, deists and agnostics, just as there are plenty of irrational atheists (of which you may have made a great case for yourself).

Gosh Nathan, I don't think we have any of those capable and honest politicians you wanted to borrow!

Mitt might get there if he can overcome the prejudice. Grandpa Thompson doesn't have a chance.

Funny how Americans get so het up about their presidents' religious affilation. It wasn't until 1960 that they finally managed to elect a Catholic, John F. Kennedy, who barely beat out Richard Nixon.

Canada's first Catholic Prime Minister was Sir John Abbott, who served from 1892 until 1894. Two years later, Wilfrid Laurier, also Catholic, became Prime Minister. No one seemed to take exception to Laurier's religion.

So if Romney is a Mormon, so what? I suppose the other candidates, both Democratic and Republican, will be at pains to mention their impeccable mainstream religious affiliations.

Congressman Ron Paul is the only true conservative Republican candidate with a host of positive changes and practical fixes for the USA. A monetary and Constitutional scholar, with an impeccable voting record, Paul has down-to-Earth ideas to end the wars, tighten security, fix the broken economy, rescue laws and civil rights, enhance diplmacy and trade, and bring back honour to the republic.

The other candidates, either Republican or Democrat, will merely seek variations of the current, disastrous course.

Neither one of these fellows is the least bit qualified to lead the U.S. This should not be read to imply that Bill's wife Hillary, is, however. Kerry and Gore were little more than warmed-over voices of the sixties. Your neighbors south of the border respectfully request you forward us some capable and honest politicians.

BNL,

Although I like the fact that you want to keep religious affiliation out of voting, I think you need to recognize that religion is based on inherently irrational beliefs. Rational people do not believe in god. Rational people need to convince religious people to give up their archaic beliefs, and then topics such as religion will no longer play a role in politics and political decisions.

Jesus Christ was one of the most radical, revolutionary individuals to walk the face of the earth. Yet, the "Christian" conservatives seem to have a lot of difficulty behaving in the way of Jesus. Theirs is the way of division, exclusion, and selfishness. Rational people know that God gave them a brain so they can think for themselves; they don't need the conservatives telling them what to do or how to think or what to believe. So, maybe it's time for the rational public to stand up to the fervor of the religious conservatives, and then politicians can be elected for their abilities rather than their religious affiliation.

I don't want to sound cynical, but doesn't the party with the most money win?