It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

H.R. 2755

Comments

I often complained that Ron Paul’s campaign is too focused on the war in Iraq,which present Dr. Paul as a one issue candidate. However if this move, symbolic as it is, will draw enough attention - it will be a great buster for the campaign. It is potentially a great move, and I’m really glad that broader issues - like taxes, the rule of government in society and economy and what liberty means will start surface.

Next we should deal with the IRS… :)

Tags:  

No tag for this post.

Written by Rogel

June 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Posted in 2008 campaign

« Unmeasurable
Evil shortcut »

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Electoral campaigns typically revolve around one main issue, with optional 1-3 complementary issues. They never encompass the true complexity you are after. Candidates who do not limit themselves to the main issues electoral races single out – find themselves moved to the sidelines… Your sponsored choice is probably aware of his sideline status, and thus can afford to add issues. But, that will only weaker his electoral support base. I'm betting he knows this, and has people reminding him of this. So, if he chooses to take this strategy, it might mean he's on his way out… (or, out of what the electorates view as true runners anyways...).
    • ^
    • v
    Huh?  What country are YOU in?  Everybody here hates taxes, this is a win-win, whether it succeeds or not.  The war is paramount, of course.  But a couple of extra issues thrown in are not distracting at all.  Besides, this just shows that none of the other turkeys have the guts to do anything except repeat the same tired old Bush doctrine.
    • ^
    • v
    All major candidates presenting their agenda on variety of issues - health care, tax cuts, foreign policy and so on. A candidate that focus only on one issue is,naturally, marginalized. It is pretty similar to the small parties in parliamentary system - they can get some support but they can never be attractive enough for the leadership.
    This being said, I never thought that Ron Paul has a real chance to win the GOP nomination. All I hoped that his campaign will energize a movement that in few years will be large enough to make a serious change. My model of expectation is the change that Goldwater triggered, despite his electoral defeat.

    Bret - Zoolish is in Israel and as an outsider observer he offers a point of view that we might lack. Let me remind you that despite the affection that the online community show to Ron Paul, "everybody" aren't supporting him - in fact his numbers in the general polls are between 0% to 1%. One more point that you might want to consider is that H.R. 2755 is dealing with abolishing the Federal Reserve, not the tax system. I am not sure how many American are worried about the existance of central bank, and its effect on their life. As a meter of point, I'm not sure if this was my first priority would I elected President (no risk here :) ). Nevertheless this is a good place to start, as any, to focus the discussion on domestic issues rather than only the war in Iraq.
    • ^
    • v
    Never did take liking to sentences beginning with "Huh, and followed by a call for geographic location… Your source for politival information (electronic and written media) is as readily available anywhere else around the globe… (There's even a fair chance that I have access to more political knowledge, but this isn't a competition on who is more informed… is it?)The ABCs of campaigning suggest that you won't get very far with win-win agendas. The point of political campaigning is to mobilize votes, and for that you have to set yourself apart from your opponents. Being in the same boat with them (even if it's a win-win, feel good, shiny happy people boat…) won't get you elected (because there's no reason for voters to sway your way…).Israel (which is indeed where I'm based) or not, the books (academic literature, written chiefly in the U.S) suggest that voters in electoral campaigns explain their voting preferences according to their stand on a very limited number of issues, and steer clear of complex (multi issue) or multifaceted agendas. This really isn't a point of view (like Rogel has suggested), but a general observation based upon comparative electoral studies.Multi party systems do tend to present voters with more complex political agenda, specifically because these are represented by small (singe issue) parties which can not compete with the larger parties on representation of the primary issues, but in such systems may still (and often do) win over part of the electorate. Still, in most electoral campaigns (in two-party systems as in multi party systems) the true competition for Presidency or, Prime Ministership (in non presidential systems) hardly ever covers more than 2-3 issues, according to which most of the electorate cast their vote. Rogel  I believe is mistaken (sorry)… it's not the singularity of your issue that casts you to the sidelines, but the issue choice if that does not adhere with the primary issues of a given electoral race.  
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with your last statement, Zoolish, that the issue of choice - or the focus of one campaign - would have a great effect on the ability to mobilize voters. However, at least according to my observations, leading candidates presents wider agenda than the second tier of candidates. Obviously they will highlight limited number of issues, but even then it will be a more general issue. It is the simplistic message, that seems to be the same regardless the question, that might confuse us to believe it is a one issue answer :)
    • ^
    • v
    It is a one issue answer. But you having agreed with me (even on a last statement) seems to be progress :)What can I say... that's what's written in those darn books...What you're referring to in your last statement is often called "catch all" strategy, which is often affiliated with "catch all" parties… these are typically the large two/three parties in every system which take on a strategy of trying to appeal to all… and thus making very little commitment on anything. 
    • ^
    • v
    This is in response to Rogel's comment: "I am not sure how many American are worried about the existance of central bank, and its effect on their life."Obviously you don't understand how the banking system works.  The federal reserve (which is *NOT* federal at all, it's run by the private banks)  can print as much money as they want, which causes inflation and does effect every single American citizen.  The federal reserve also chooses the rate of interest that the united states is responsible to pay off their debt to them (which is paid by income tax) which also effects every single american citizen.  I feel that not enough American citizens have knowledge of how big banks work.  If even 40% of them did, there will no longer be a federal reserve.  If our own government printed the money used, the savings on the interest alone would elminate the need for an income tax.  Or at least greatly reduce the percent of the income tax.  All our income tax dollars go to is paying off the national debt and the millitary industrial complex.  So, yes, the federal reserve and income taxes go hand in hand.  Without the FR, there would be no need for income tax, which (technically) is an illegal tax anyways.  There are only two types of taxes legal in the USA.  Excess tax (such as on gas, cigarettes, alcohol, ect) and direct taxes.  Direct taxes *MUST* be appropriated.  Income tax is a direct tax that is NOT appropriated, thus illegal.  They word the tax code as a "voluntary" tax.  If citizens knew how this worked, no one would pay income tax.  It's enforcement is strickly by force (seizures, liens, ect) not by law.  People in this country know suprisingly nothing about money.  We all know how to spend it, and we (hopefully) know how to earn it.. but not many know where it comes from and the implications of where it comes from.  Maybe they could teach that in school....
    • ^
    • v
    Chris,
    We are having what my wife calls a "violent agreement" :)
    It is not that I'm in favor of the FR, it is that I don't think that most Americans cares. From your comment I don't think that we disagree.
    • ^
    • v
    Rogel,Yeah, I'm sorry about that.  After re-reading your comments, I realized I was reading more into it than what you actually said.  My point was that we all *should* be worried and want to abolish the FR.  It's too bad that more people care about Paris Hilton getting out of jail than they do about their government.  Now we have Bush and Cheney saying that they're exempt from laws pertaining to the executive branch.  The "sheeple" of the USA probably don't have any idea that the President is the head of the executive branch.  Oh well.. I guess once the illegal mexican's get amnesty, we can always move to Mexico!!Take care.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus