Help me out here. This all seems so easy. When that happens, it makes me think I’ve overlooked the elephant in the bathtub, skunk at the picnic — and other embarrassing analogies indicating faulty logic, sheer stupidity, analytical blindness.
It goes like this: There are 8 people running for the Republican or Democratic presidential nomination.
When questioned on the economy, defense, Iraq/"War on Terror," guns, health care, taxes, immigration, education, Social Security, Medicare — even tin-foil hat conspiracy theories — one candidate and only one consistently answers with a Constitutional principle at the chewy center. No "I feel…" or "My philosophy is…" or "Personally, I believe…" With Ron Paul, it’s All Constitution All The Time.
This remarkable and admirable consistency is apparently lost on the other candidates, the Network provided "debate moderators" and, sadly, the majority of voters. The voters get a bit of a pass, though. Prolific writer/philosopher Ann Onymous once wrote, "We can only love what we know; we can only know what we’re taught." (or something similar). How can you "love" a candidate’s principled Constitutional stand when the media has successfully boxed him out of the discussion? In a recent 2 hour "debate," Ron Paul was asked 5 questions while the "moderators" fawned over the non-stop blatherings of the other four for the duration.
Indeed, when considering the "products" turned out by the Government Training Camps (i.e. "public schools"), it may be expecting too much of the functionally illiterate electorate to suddenly throw off their mantel of aggressive ignorance and develop an appreciation for principled Constitutional positions that don’t satisfy their need for instant gratification.
So what about that "Oath Thingy"?
Recently, a caller to my show was blatantly dissing the importance of the Constitution. I asked if it would be appropriate — even necessary — to expect the New President, regardless of Party, to honor his Oath of Office? Yes. And that Oath says, in part, the President swears "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States," right? Yes. Then how can you support any candidate whose platform is unconstitutional? When a President promises things that are not within the Constitutional purview of the Office, isn’t that a violation of the Oath? Or is it OK to be "just a little unconstitutional"? Since "we’ve always done it this way" — and "this way" has been consistently unconstitutional — does regularity make violating the Constitution’s limits on government power OK? Isn’t blatant disregard for the Rule of Law the act of a tyrant? So wouldn’t that mean if you vote for Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama or Edwards — all of whom subscribe and espouse distinctly unconstitutional plans and programs — you are voting for a tyrant, not a President?
This is way too simple. Where did I screw up?