Primary Lovefest v. Primary Battlefield

Do you remember in 2008 when the press colluded with their leaders in the Democratic Party to present leftwing politics as a lovefest?

Issues played a back seat to images.

The media was so slick that even the seriously flawed candidate John Edwards appeared a beacon of reason and hope.


America replaced the Democratic majority in Congress with a Democratic supermajority without even a slightest idea of what the supermajority would do.

Many of my friends thought Obama would usher in a new age of reason and social justice with a legislature constrained by hardcore financial acumen and Blue Dog sensibilities.

The Republican primary is the opposite.

The media blows up every minor conflict while beating drums of fear, doom and gloom.

Sadly, ideas still take a back seat to the conflicts. The only really well developed idea to appear in the campaign was Cain's 999 Plan (which wasn't a very good plan).

I like that Ron Paul has been consistent in his defense of the Constitution, but his campaign has failed to give the public any idea about how we will transition from our corrupt centralized government back to a Constitutionally limited one.

I am not pounding the Ron Paul drum because, without a clearly defined path, Dr. Paul will not succeed in the goal of restoring the Constitution. I fear that the Paulistas have underestimated the anti-freedom reaction that will ensue if Paul won.

The people I met at Occupy Wall Street were so overcome with hatred that I actually fear violence if we tried directly restoring the Constitution by reducing the central authority.

I look in dismay at the field of candidates and fear that none of them are positioned to restore the Constitution.

But as I think about the American experiment, I realize that the Founders of the United States really did not intend the president to be as powerful as the president is today.

The Founders of the United States rejected the monarchy. The did not want the presidency to be the source of ideas. They wanted the people, the states and legislatures to be the source of ideas.


In my opinion, the ideal president would be someone who would administer the government while the people were the source of the creative ideas. The thing to avoid is a president with an organization that actively stifles debate.

I really fear the Republican Establishment behind Mitt Romney. Were Romney president, the Republican establishment would bear down and effectly silence and destroy the voices of freedom within the party ... as had happened under George Bush.

As the candidates bash at each other in Iowa, I hope the American people abandon the fantasy that the presidency is the answer.

In the American Experiment, the people, not the government, should be the source of the ideas.

The one and only way for America to restore our freedom is for the members of the freedom movement to break out its shell and start actively discussing real solutions for the afflictions of the day.

A Libertarian who looks toward the presidency to solve our problems is a contradiction in terms. Liberty loving Americans need to find the answers within themselves and not the with the government.

The Iowa caucus has simply re-inforced my opinion that there are no candidates on this planet who I want to have the power currently concentrated in the presidency.