"Would I Support X If it Was Someone Else Proposing it?"

Tweet

This is the first question that we all need to ask ourselves with every political decision. It is very important because anytime we allow one president or congress to do something, we are also approving of it for the presidents and congresses to come. All too often, we base our support or opposition on who is proposing it instead of what is being proposed. No example is better than the major bills of the Obama administration. No one can say that the bills were supported on their merits because no supporter got a chance to read the details to see what the merits might be. Instead we have been left with arguments based on names and parties. People said, we'll, you didn't mind it when Bush used Bailouts, or had Czars. First of all, YES, A LOT OF US DID! But more importantly, just because both Bush and Obama used the term "Bail Out" doesn't mean they had the same goals in mind. Would you have approved of a Bush plan to take over GM, or order the sell of Crysler to a foreign company? Where were all the "buy American" people when Obama was selling an American company to an Italian company? Back when Prs. Clinton was the Commander in Chief, he had no problem enforcing the Ceasefire between the US and Iraq. He lobbed missiles at targets in Iraq, and continued Prs. Bush (Sr)'s air defense of the No Fly Zones. But even though people supported Prs. Bush (Sr) and Prs. Clinton's enforcing of the Ceasefire, when Prs. Bush Jr. came around, all of the sudden, it was the UN's responsibility to enforce the ceasefire, and the US was just "playing world police". When we make the person more important than the position, we endanger our entire Constitutional Republic.. and our freedom. Cults of Personality are inherently dangerous.