The Democrats have been bemoaning Bush’s questionable (kind euphemism) regard for our Constitution for years - and for good reason.  The only problem is that their candidates have a tenuous grasp at best on what the Constitutional role of government actually is.  The biggest offender: John Edwards.  Just watch this YouTube interview (Kudos to Rob).

YouTube Preview Image

Near the end the interviewer asked Edwards a series of rapid fire, short answer questions.  Edwards was asked to define whether something should be a right or a privilege.

Question: A college education?

Edwards: Right.

Q: Health care?

E: Right.

Q: A livable wage?

E: Right.

Q: Owning a handgun?

E: Privilege.

Q: Access to the Internet?

E: That should be a right.

For all of the complaining Democrats have done about Bush’s Constitutional disregard I don’t understand how this can be one of their leading candidates.  The man’s grasp of Constitutional rights could be generously described as tenuous.

Contrast Edwards with Ron Paul - who has not only actually read the Constitution, but fully understands it and seeks to run the government according to its limits.  Here is the Ron Paul YouTube interview:

YouTube Preview Image

This is one of Paul’s better interviews because he doesn’t focus on the Iraq War.  His position on the war turns off many rank and file Republican voters because they conflate his position on the war with the Democrats position.  But I believe that if anyone who truly favors lower taxes and smaller government studies Paul’s platform they will find his beliefs very convincing.  None of the other Republican candidates - and certainly none of the Democratic candidates - want to actually reduce the size of the federal government and have a legacy of votes to reinforce their honesty on this matter.

Related content: