Delavar Shares Ron Paul’s Naiveté

by lewwaters

I was somewhat surprised last evening to receive an email from Candidate Michael Delavar about midnight. No, it was not the usual run of the mill “vote for me” email, but a personal note asking why, back on May 26 on Victoria Taft’s forum, I said I would not vote for Delavar and would cast a vote for Democrat Brian Baird instead, due to his support for winning in Iraq now.

Apparently, Delavar, 34, considers himself the sole conservative running. In subsequent emails, he speaks of the race as between him and Baird, neglecting that the Washington State Republican Party unanimously endorsed the candidacy of Christine Webb, not Michael Delavar, to run against Baird and another Democrat anti-war activist, Cheryl Crist.

I’ve never met Delavar, Crist or Webb, but I have Brian Baird. Even as a Republican I was going to vote for Baird over Delavar, but due to Baird’s joining fellow Democrats in not supporting the Broadcaster Freedom Act, I am having second thoughts on that.

Currently Delavar appears ahead of Webb in gaining enough votes on our August 19 Primary to face Baird, but Webb is a late starter and just getting going.

Delavar can be found on many Ron Paul forums, supporting his failed run this year. Paul considered himself a conservative Republican, but has a history of being a lifelong Libertarian, losing a previous bid for the presidency under that parties banner in 1988.

Delavar and Paul both have some excellent fiscal ideas that I agree with. Then again, even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day.

I was a bit surprised that a candidate for the House of Representatives would be thin skinned enough to contact a single voter who expressed opposition to him for an explanation of why. Out of the thousands of voters in the 3rd Congressional District, surely one little voter isn’t all that important for one who claims to have “jumped ahead” of an incumbent.

Most disturbing to me was his reply after I told him that I cannot support any candidate that advocates withdrawing from the War on Terror prematurely, as we have often done since WW2, leaving allies at the mercy of enemies who have historically slaughtered millions of innocent civilians as we turned a blind eye. I also stated that I could not support anyone who advocated the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, essentially outsourcing the defense of our nation to mercenaries.

So, I was somewhat taken aback that someone considering themselves to be a Conservative Republican would reply with, “one question we have to ask is whether the Republican party has become the party of war.”

Being a Viet Nam Veteran myself, I do not like war, but understand that our liberties and freedoms are ensured and protected by our Brave Troops fighting on our behalf to prevent another September 11 attack upon our country. I do not see the love of freedom and liberty, understanding the price that must be paid and has been paid since our country was founded, and being willing to pay that price as being “the party of war.”

I am left with the impression that Delavar, like Ron Paul, feels we brought the attacks of September 11 on ourselves.

Delavar also asked, “What about being pro-life, fiscally conservative, for securing our borders without amnesty, and protecting our sovereignty? None of those things seem to be important to our supposedly “conservative” Republican party. Only war.”

As I see it, Delavar is completely missing the boat in what we are fighting. Of course, if we lose this war, or just walk away and allow the Iraqis and Afghanis to flounder as Al Qaeda and the Taliban take over two countries to base out of, of what use will the other issues be once the suicide bombings and I.E.D.’s begin within our borders?

Additionally, Delavar said, “If we want bankruptcy as a nation, we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until the cows come home.”

Does it escape him that “the cows” haven’t yet come home from Japan, Germany and South Korea, not to mention hundreds of other bases around the globe in some 60 years? That hasn’t bankrupted us. He must not realize that the cost of fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan currently amount to less than 4% of our GDP, hardly bankruptcy range, I believe.

Explaining to him that as a Viet Nam Veteran, the thought of abandoning another struggling country to their fate against a heavily armed enemy, as we did Viet Nam, which culminated in millions of innocent lives being lost in South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, was abhorrent to me, the reply of “Yes, there are some unpleasant possibilities that might come about when we leave. We don’t know exactly what will be happening until that happens,” was elicited.

I don’t know about you, but millions of innocent people slaughtered because of what they believe, many thousands more dying when escaping a Communist nation in rickety boats, is a bit more than merely “some unpleasant possibilities.” I place more value on life than that.

Earlier on he was mentioning his “pro-life” stance in opposing abortions, as most of us do. How pro-life is it to support a child being born but consider millions of innocent men, women and children being slaughtered as an “unpleasant possibility?”

Little wonder that the July 22, 2008 “In Our View” section of The Columbian says, “Michael Delavar, is trying to seize on the Ron Paul passion that rose but now fizzles among many conservatives. He and others made big noise at the Clark County convention, but the real news occurred in the February GOP primary when Paul earned less than 7 percent of local votes.”

This Conservative Republican has no intention of standing by as Ron Paul Libertarians step in and take over the Republican Party as Liberals did the Democrat Party. The GOP is fractured and does need repair, but not adopting the views of a whiner as Ron Paul who can’t even see who our enemies are, in spite of three decades of attacks against us.

Support our Troops. Support their mission. And, help return the GOP to its true conservative base by voting for Christine Webb.

24 Responses to “Delavar Shares Ron Paul’s Naiveté”

  1. Galapagos Brian will be very tough to beat. However, Michael Delavar, quite well known down here in Clark County, has a much better chance of pulling that off than Christine Webb, who is just another colorless low-level GOP functionary from Olympia who won the GOP endorsment in a stinky 11th hour backroom deal. You can’t win this race without carrying Clark County. Even though I don;t agree with Delavar (or Ron Paul) on everything, they are so right on so many issues that he will have my vote.

    Like

  2. Tim, I too agree with some of Delavar’s stances. But, his naivete, just as Ron Pauls, on the War on Terror is where I mostly disagree. History is on my side here as to what happens.

    All the good ides of fiscal conservatism will be for naught once terrorists are roaming our streets and killing our citizens here at home. That is the pressing issue we must deal with. Pulling back again and abandoning another ally makes us look weak and destroys any credibility we may have with other nations who may side with us in future endeavors.

    You have all the freedom to support Michael just as I have the same to oppose him. You may think he has the best chance against Baird, but at least Baird woke up to the world and supports defending America.

    I may only be one small voice, but my voice will oppose Delavar and support who best stands up for defending the American people from terror.

    Like

  3. Hello, I’m not seeing anything but support for a strong military and a strong defense from Michael Delavar. With respect to our actions in the middle east, his primary concern seems to be that we have failed to follow consitutionally mandated principles in prosecuting the war in Iraq (as opposed to our emergency actions in Afghanistan which were clearly justified and legal imo). I think such concern is highly appropriate, and long overdue. If we dump the constitution anytime it becomes “inconvenient” we end up with messes like the housing crisis (brought about by reckless and unconstitutional creation of $ out of thin air), runaway inflation and concommitant dramatic increases in the price of energy, government confiscation of private lands without just compensation or process of law – and the mess in Iraq. Over the long term, these violations of the constitution threaten our way of life far more than any short term gains we may (or may not) have gotten by “kicking Saddam’s Ass” or the like.

    At this stage a carefully planned and sensibly executed cut-back on our military presence in Iraq is entirely appropriate. Like it or not, our actions in Iraq have resulted in the death and displacement of thousands of innocent Muslim and Christian civilians and this has certainly not endeared us to the general population. I believe we should offer immediate resettlement to the US for any Iraqi citizens who have been displaced and are threatened by our withdrawal, and to the extent that we are to have an ongoing presence there, it needs to be within the bounds of constitutional limits and process. Just my opinion, but I’m voting for Michael.

    Like

  4. And just so there’s no misunderstanding – I totally support our troops and think they have done an absolutely amazing job over there under extraordinarily hostile conditions. I just want them to come home now – it’s time.

    Like

  5. By the way, for those Republicans who ignore the bulk of Baird’s voting in lockstep with Pelosi, isn’t it enough that Baird is the Obama state chair? Imagine him being a yes-man to Obama (God forbid.) Also, have you looked at Christine Webb? All fluff, no substance. If the voters want her, they are saying they don’t want any significant change. If you want a departure from failed government practices, vote for Delavar.

    Like

  6. Tom & Betsy, thank you for stopping by to show support for your candidate. We need more citizens showing support for who will they vote for.

    Tom, I see nowhere that I said Michael does not “support the Troops.” As I see it, and judging by your own comment, neither of you “support their mission” currently. You claim, “We have failed to follow constitutionally mandated principles in prosecuting the war in Iraq (as opposed to our emergency actions in Afghanistan which were clearly justified and legal imo).”

    The mistake many make is separating Iraq and Afghanistan as “different wars.” They are but battles within the larger war. Neither is “illegal” in any sense. Bush did indeed approach Congress for approval before taking action in both theater and won over all approval.

    No, it was not a formal Declaration of War, but how do you declare war against a group scattered among many nations? The War Powers Act of 1973 lays out, “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

    Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

    You say the war isn’t “following constitutionally mandated principles” in prosecution. Would you mind expressing just what “principles” are not being “constitutionally prosecuted?” As far as I know, the constitution grants the President Command of the Military in prosecuting war, not Congress.

    Congress has had the power all along to force a cessation of our engagement at any time by simply defunding it. Why all the smoke and mirrors instead?

    Michael and I are in agreement on returning our money to the gold standard, by the way.

    As for “cutting back” on our involvement, isn’t that what has been gradually happening? Has not President Bush all along said, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down?” They are standing up and we have reduced the number of Troops in Iraq with more scheduled, as the situation permits.

    I do believe we are “generally accepted” more by rank and file Iraqis and Afghani’s than the National Media reports. Of course, finding good news about our involvement in either theater in the National Media is difficult, that’s why I seek it from the Troops themselves.

    Please explain just how you would “offer immediate resettlement to the US for any Iraqi citizens who have been displaced and are threatened by our withdrawal.” Do you have any idea just how many people that could be? Wouldn’t it be better to help them stay and reclaim their own land, without fear of reprisals from invading forces after we leave? Once we are gone, how do we know just who and where “any Iraqi citizens who have been displaced and are threatened by our withdrawal” are?

    Also, what about surrounding nations? After we simply walked away from Viet Nam came the killing fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and the slaughter in Laos. You don’t think Iran would step up their goal of conquest in the region?

    Betsy, I fail to see where Christine Webb’s experience is “all fluff, no substance” compared to Michael’s lack of political experience. In fact, I don’t see any experience listed for Michael at his site.

    As for Christine’s “all fluff, no substance” she is currently working with County Commissioners South Lewis County’s economic development, has in the past worked as Public and Government Relations/Legislative Assistant, House Republican Organizational Committee, House Republican Caucus; Communications Department, been Self Employed -1999 to 2007, Preservation Management with Evaline School District, Chairman Evaline School Board, Budget and Finance Officer’s Assistant for the United States Forest Service in addition to several Community and Volunteer Experiences.

    On the other hand, Delevar’s experience, listed at a supportive website is, “flies planes for a living (absolutely nothing wrong with that, btw), an accomplished ballroom dancer and cultivates bonsai. Also listed is “handing out political literature with his family as a young boy in Bremerton” and “his wife being hired as a regional organizer for the Ron Paul campaign in Southwest Washington.”

    http://www.politickerwa.com/bryanbissell/578/catching-challengers-michael-delavar-high-flying-fiscal-conservative-runs-3rd-distr

    If you consider Christine’s experience as “all fluff, no substance,” I’m curious just how you see Michaels. Just what is it about flying for Horizon that prepares one to represent the 3rd Congressional District?

    Seems to me the same old, same old would be voting for Michael who would be a total novice having the learn the ropes from the ground up. Christine, on the other hand, has worked with people in government and represented groups in the past. She wouldn’t need training wheels on her seat.

    Don’t get me wrong, but I think if you compared fiscal concerns between Michael and Christine you’d find them fairly close. However, Christine does have the experience and does see the necessity of finishing the fight against terrorists before they return to our shores.

    I’m voting for experience. The real change will be to have an experienced Representative for the 3rd Congressional District with conservative values, not one needing on the job training. I’m voting for Christine Webb.

    Like

  7. Altho I could speak at length to all of your comments Lew, I am time limited as a very busy self-employed engineer, so have decided to focus just on this one:

    “The mistake many make is separating Iraq and Afghanistan as “different wars.” They are but battles within the larger war. Neither is “illegal” in any sense. Bush did indeed approach Congress for approval before taking action in both theater and won over all approval. ”

    I’m aware that this is the “base case” that those who support our approach in the Middle East repeatedly make. But I think it’s very incorrect. Other than rough geographic proximity and minor cultural and ethnic overlap, Iraq and Afghanistan had very little in common, prior to the war. Afghanistan was, without argument, one of sevral hotbeds of islamic extremism (the other most consequential ones being Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran), while Iraq was basically a secular state run by a ruthless dictator who would brook no internal militant religious fundamentalism unless it happened, occasionally, to have a convenient nexus with his own personal desire to remain in power.

    While an argument was made that the presence of WMD were a significant factor in justifying our military actions, it does seem, after the fact, that the bulk of the WMD evidence was, to be charitable, “enhanced” to look much more compelling than it actually was. The exact motivations for this enhancement are still unclear, but to me it smacks of the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication that was used to get us into Vietnam, simply because some folks in the Kennedy administration thought it was just a great idea to get into that war because of the “domino theory” and were looking for anything tangible to get American citizenry behind them. I strongly suspect that George Bush and certainof is advisors had simply decided to go after Saddam no matter what, and when you’ve got that mindset, one reason is as good as another.

    If you are going to take the position that other countries besides Afghanistan harbored or engendered radical islamists who were a threat to the United States, and that military action was therefore appropriate, it seems totally obvious that Iraq would have been well behind any of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran in importance. So why did we pick Iraq? Just because it we thought it would be geo-politically more palatable than e.g. Saudi Arabia? It kinda reminds me of a Mad Magazine cartoon in which a highway patrol officer pulls over an old car, and prepares to give the driver a speeding ticket. The driver protests ” But officer, I wasn’t speeding!” The officer answers “I know, but I can never catch any of the cars that are.”

    Like

  8. Mind you, I did not say her experience is “all fluff, no substance”. It is not about her experience – she has that. Let us take an example of her experience – House Republican Caucus – this is her job description: “I posted news releases helped with web-design and updated member information. My main role was to insure that the web-site was constantly updated with current legislative information and news. I also posted the “Capitol Buzz” everyday which is a conglomeration of pertinent news articles from around the state to help keep subscribers informed on issues.” Okay, if that is being experienced in politics, then she can claim it as experience under her belt.

    What I was talking about was upon viewing her at her events, she presented no real solutions. Most of what she had to offer was just making more promises without any real substance. Have you seen her in a debate or a forum?

    I hope that you have or do. I pray that you make the right choice. But don’t hate someone just because that person supports a candidate that you did not prefer. I can see that you have looked into the issues and prefer Webb. I am not trying to change that. There was a misunderstanding of what I said that I am trying to clear up.

    Like

  9. Tom, I asked if you would provide “just what “principles” are not being “constitutionally prosecuted.” Instead, you give your version of history. I find this quite often when those who claim the war is either “illegal” or “unconstitutional” are challenged, they divert away from that claim.

    As for your history, yes, Bush did make a case in the belief of WMDs present in Iraq. How could he not with virtually every intelligence agancy in the world claiming they were there? Could Saddam have fooled so many so easily? Or, could they have destroyed at the last minute or spirited out in the six month long “rush to war?” We may never know.

    Now, look at the time. With so many beliving and reporting they were there and so soon after 9/11, with intelligence reports of some cooperation between Saddam and extremists (not in regards to 9/11, no one ever claimed that), could you as Commander in Chief, take the risk of those WMDs everyone thought was there falling into the wrong hands?

    Granted, that wasn’t the only reason we went in, but I think it would have been a total dereliction of duty for any Commander to ignore that possibility along with Saddam’s refusal to account for them and his ignoring 17 UN Resolutions over 12 years.

    When you have some free time, persue this lengthy report by a Canadian who presents an unbiased view of it all. Enlightening. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/13523260500190492

    If I may point out a minor flaw in your memory, It was the Johnson administration who escalated Viet Nam by the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, not Kennedy. Not a big deal, just thought you might like to know.

    Oh yes, the Domino theory was proven with the fall of both Cambodia and Laos and nearly Indonesia after we abandoned South Viet Nam.

    I don’t see anyone in the Bush administration desiring to fight any more than is necessary. Why Iraq, you ask? Why not Iraq? It was Saddam who was in violation of the cease fire accords he signed. It was Saddam’s Iraq who was reported to have WMDs. It was Saddam’s Iraq who practiced genocide upon his own people.

    Also, Iraq is centrally located and if Democracy gained a foothold there, it could only spread outwards. Remember Ghaddafi and his deciding to turn in his WMDs suddenly? Any thought as to why he didn’t offer until after Saddam was overthrown so quickly?

    I’m sure you recall Al Gore’s infamous rant in the 2004 elections of “he betrayed this country, he played on our fears.” Yet, what was Al Gore saying in February 202, a year before Bush invaded Iraq? “[Saddam] Hussein was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade — and still do.”

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01EEDE163FF930A25751C0A9649C8B63

    You had John Kerry in 1997 making a big speech before the Senate in which he called for attacking Saddam too, unilaterally if need be, if Saddam did not comply with Weapons inspectors.

    http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/IR971109.html

    You had Hillary Clinton saying that the intelligence Bush received was the same intelligence Bill Clinton received on the Larry King show.

    You had Al Gore criticizing Bush 1 in 1992 for ignoring Saddam’s ties to terrorists.

    You had ABC, in 1999, running a show making the case of a Saddam Terror connection to Bin Laden.

    This is but the tip of the iceberg of what Bush inherited. Should he have ignored it all and believed one or two that WMDs did not exist after the September 11 attacks, or not take the chance and go to eliminate them before any possibility of them falling into terrorists hands?

    Try this op-ed out as well, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121253706422142819.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    No, my friend, it would have been total dereliction of duty to just sit back and not worry about Iraq after 9/11 and hope for the best.

    Like

  10. Betsy, I only go by your words as you wrote them. If I misinterpreted them, my apology.

    I do find it curious that you select one minor portion of her experience to list and semi-ridicule, ignoring much deeper experience listed.

    Still, you say it isn’t about her experience, but her demeanor (?) in events and not presenting solutions.

    Campaigning, it is real easy to say what you will do, but once there, it becomes another matter. Personally, I don’t want someone who thinks they have all the answers. They are there to represent us and listen to us as to how we want to be governed, not tell us how we will live.

    As I said, I have not met her in person, nor have I Michael. I look forward to meeting her in the future.

    Still, I asked about Michael’s lack of experience and what qualifies him and you did not answer. Don’t get me wrong, I think piloting is a great profession and very needed (I was a helicopter crew chief/mechanic while in the Army), but what experience does that supply to represent the 3rd District?

    Ideas are as common as people, we all have them and many are very good. The next step is the experience to get others from the opposing side to agree enough to implement them.

    That’s where I think Michael is lacking.

    That, and as I keep repeating, it is naïve to think Iraq isn’t important enough to finish favorably for our countries.

    Like

  11. You said: “They are there to represent us and listen to us as to how we want to be governed, not tell us how we will live.”

    I disagree. A leader should be elected because his views reflect the majority of the citizens. It is not because the citizens are going to shape his views after he is elected. However, pressure put on by the citizens should be considered and if it is within the scope of the principles of the candidate, then he should consider the appropriate action to take.

    Like

  12. Betsy, our words are actually similar, I just chose fewer.

    Yes, at times a Representative will have to go against those he represents. That’s basically how the Civil Rights Bills were passed. Many constituents, North and South, were opposed to those laws, but they were necessary and right.

    Yes, convincing a majority of voters they share their values and will strive for them in Congress will elect a Representative.

    Yes, all candidates running show ideas that coincide with voters, hopefully a majority of voters so they can be elected. However, once there, how do they plan or intend to implement those ideas into actions and laws?

    That is where I feel Christine Webb towers over Michael Delavar. She has experience dealing with others in the political realm; Michael does not.

    Truthfully, other than the naivete on the War on Terror, I like Michael and have nothing against him. But, to implement Paul’s ideas into actions, he would have to join forces with the likes of anti-war leftists, such as Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and more.

    As a Veteran, that is abhorrent to me, especially when all indications are we are winning and terrorists are falling back.

    Leaving another job undone will just repeat history, to the detriment of possibly millions of Iraqi citizens an eventually, American citizens again.

    After three decades of attacks against American interests, twice upon our own soil, when is it time to say “enough?” It isn’t America’s fault that a radical element desiring world dominance fights freedom.

    Like

  13. Lew, you make my case, far better than I could. Iraq had nothing to do with the post 9/11 terrorism which we, legitimately, went after in Afghanistan. Instead, it was an entirely separate action, nominally having to do with supposed WMDs and related UN mandates. Such an war, unlike Afghanistan, could not constitutionally be prosecuted without a declaration of war by the United States Congress against Iraq. This is black-letter law.

    As to your comments concerning Ms. Webb, while I would grant that she has established ties and experience at low-level “good old boy” GOP politics in WA state, Michael Delavar also has excellent contacts and grass-roots support in the new emerging force in the GOP, and just as important, probably has 40 IQ points on Webb. Just listen to this recent piece from Webb:

    and compare it to this piece from Delavar:

    and tell me which strikes you as mere recitation and regurgitation of the standard feel-good family value fare combined with the usual GOP talking points, as opposed to careful analysis of issues, intelligent and thoughtful solutions, and an appreciation of nuance. While Webb’s approach may indeed may endear her to that portion of the GOP establishment that seems to find original thought threatening, my vote is most certainly going to tend toward Delavar, someone with fresh ideas and the intellect to match. The problems we face need some real brainpower, not just experience in glad-handing, playing along, and back-room deal-making of convenience. Heavens knows we’ve had way to much of that already.

    Like

  14. Sorry, Tom, but all the wishful thinking you can muster doesn’t change the fact that the Invasion of Iraq was done legally and is just.

    Lawsuits have been filed over it and thrown out of court.

    Bush did as he was supposed to and acted acordingly, with approval, no matter what you might think.

    Paul is dead wrong on this one.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20030501/ai_n11387330

    As to your comparison of Webb and Delavar, apples and oranges when you compare a campaign video produced and filmed professionally to a call in interview.

    Nice try, but it still doesn’t give Delavar the needed experience to get any ideas he may have pushed through Congress.

    As for this “emerging force” in the GOP, we are aware of it and unlike when the liberals took over the Democrats, we will not simply stand by and let Libertarians take over the GOP.

    Libertarians have their own party and it will grow without taking over the GOP, provided enough people agree with you.

    Ya’ll might fool some, but you haven’t fooled all of us.

    Like

  15. Lew, listen to Webb’s impromptu comments during e.g. debates (also available in various places online) and you will find a similar lack of depth.

    As to your other comments, who’s fooling whom? I’ve made no secret of my political leanings and positions, and am more than happy to discuss them at length at any time (at least on weekends :-).

    The reality is that the GOP desperately needs new blood and new ideas. All political parties need that from time to time, especially one that has become as ossified as the GOP. Even someone who’s been a GOP member for many years, such as myself, recognizes this fact. I recently attended a good-sized fund-raiser for one of the other local GOP candidates I also support, and was aghast to find that I was probably the youngest person in the room. This is not a good sign for the future of the GOP, and refreshingly is never a problem at Delavar get-togethers.

    Third parties in this country don’t work. But like it or not, certain Libertarian concepts are becoming more main-stream among younger conservative Republicans, and even when I don’t completely agree with a concept, I find this tendency refreshing and nothing but a positive sign for the future of the party. Of course, some entrenched forces within the GOP find different ideas and ways of doing things threatening. So be it. But others (including myself) will welcome the opportunity to integrate new ways of thinking into the existing party framework, and out of this process will emerge a much better and more vital GOP for the 21st century.

    Like

  16. I also just took a look at your link regarding the anti Iraq war lawsuit. That lawsuit was thrown out for technical reasons having nothing to do with the merits, upon which the judge never ruled. And in my opinion the judge was wrong – if a US citizen doesn’t have standing in federal court, then who the hell does!? Or should we countenance a United States in which the executive branch has no judicial restraint on its actions no matter how egregious?

    Like

  17. I also just took a look at your link regarding the anti Iraq war lawsuit. That lawsuit was thrown out for technical reasons having nothing to do with the merits, upon which the judge never ruled. And in my opinion the judge was wrong – if a US citizen doesn’t have standing in federal court, then who the hell does!? Or should we countenance a United States in which the executive branch can have no judicial restraint on its international actions no matter how egregious?

    Like

  18. I am amazed that some would consider going back to the traditional Republican principles – a Libertarian viewpoint. Will we be Republicans only if we support undeclared wars? Or is that the only issue that makes us Republicans? I just don’t get this.

    Like

  19. Betsy and Tom, first of all, I admire your devotion to your candidate, even if I think it is misplaced. I wish more had the zeal behind candidates as you two.

    Next, all the cries of “undeclared war” are for naught. Bush followed legal and proper procedures in gaining Congressional approval for attacking Iraq. He had and has congressionally mandated authority to do so, even if Ron Paul disagrees.

    It would be total folly to force an abandonment of Iraq currently as well. By all accords, we are winning, even the Associated Press begrudgingly admits that.

    Betsy, I don’t know for sure, but I doubt you are old enough to recall much about “traditional Republicans.” The isolationalism advocated prior to WW2 ended up costing a lot of blood. The enemy faced today is no less ruthless and in many regards, even more ruthless than enemies faced in the past.

    Abandoning struggling allies is not a conservative position.

    Tom, it is fruitless to try to convince me that Michael has a better presence before the camera than does Christine. No matter what, you will stay behind your candidate, as I will mine. To me, it is the experience of ability to transform ideas into legislation where Christine excels and Michael is lacking. I’m sure you see it differently, which is your prerogative.

    No, so far, third parties have not worked. I think that is tragic, as we need a strong third party to break the gridlock and power struggle between the Dems and GOP. Of course, I’d like it to be a strong conservative party, not a watered down version advocated by many claiming to be “true conservatives” today.

    Instead of trying to take over a party for an agenda, why not work harder to see another party grow and become a viable third party? It can be done, but will require a lot of hard work and effort. Trying to redefine the Republicans to Libertarians will not.

    As for the lawsuit being thrown out, yes it was over a technicality. But, if you will note, it was 5 years ago and has not been refilled. A simple Google search would also reveal that many other lawsuits were thrown out for just cause. The simple fact is the Iraq Theater is just and legal!

    Paul, Kucinich, Delavar, Sheehan and others are dead wrong. If there were a clear illegality in it, the Courts and the Dems would have succeeded in their plan for abandoning another ally already. The “it’s illegal” cry is little more than a BDS inspired smokescreen.

    Paul, especially, is just as wrong about Iraq as he was when he declared that Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War.

    What many can’t fathom is that we are not ‘AT WAR with Iraq.’ We invaded to depose Saddam, which became Official US Policy under the previous administration in 1998. The goal being to free the Iraqi’s and cut off the possible movement of support and weapons to a radical Jihadist group.

    In the letter I received from Delavar, sent out to all PCO’s, he says, “I am a strong Nationalist, and want to use the appropriate tools to declare war against the terrorists that attacked us on American soil. I don’t want to spend our citizen’s hard earned money in nation building efforts.”

    How does he propose declaring war on nations harboring terrorists and not rebuilding them after they are decimated? Would he and Paul simply destroy the nation and leave the people to fend for themselves afterwards? If the goal is to breed even more contempt for America, that would be the plan to follow.

    The notion of using letters of Marque and Reprisal, tantamount to outsourcing our defense to mercenaries, is even more foolish since other nations have banned them long ago, and rightfully so and “privateers” have no allegiance to America or our constitution.

    I feel it is much better and even easier to finish the task at hand instead of abandoning it to regroup and try another avenue that Paul thinks dots every “T’ and crosses every “I.”

    The House of Representatives isn’t the place to get your feet wet and learn how to do the job. Some knowledge and experience is a must before getting there.

    That is why I will continue to support and vote for Christine Webb.

    Like

  20. Good night.

    Like

  21. Good night, Betsy. I do hope you have a very enjoyable week ahead.

    Like

  22. Lew you wrote, “I was a bit surprised that a candidate for the House of Representatives would be thin skinned enough to contact a single voter who expressed opposition to him for an explanation of why.”

    One could take this to be an indication of the accessibility of the candidate and not an indication that he or she is “thin-skinned”. Perhaps Mr. Delavar is interested in hearing what opinions the people of the 3rd district have in order to better understand the constituency he is intending to represent?

    I would suggest meeting in person with Mr. Delavar in order to discuss your differences of opinion. I think that would be much more productive.

    Like

  23. D Jenkins, you may see it that way, but I do not. Most all candidates are accessible, I have personally met a few, as well as meeting Brian Baird in person and discussing issues.

    I correspond on a regular basis with our politicians, up to and including President Bush (of course, aids take those correspondence.)

    From the White House, I received a nice letter, suitable for framing, last December thanking me for corresponding and “kind words.” Of course, it is a signature stamp, not his actual signature, but a nice gesture.

    I meet with and talk to local candidates and have corresponded with Christine Webb, whom I look forward to meeting soon.

    I am not averse to meeting with Michael, but I really don’t see the need. While I agree with much of what he says and desires, we are too far apart on the issue I value mostly.

    Yes, as a Viet Nam Veteran, it is a very personal issue with me and I deeply feel and believe that both Michael Delavar and Ron Paul are seriously wrong regarding the War on Terror.

    Like

Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: