I'd kinda like to be the President, so I can show you how your money's spent

You Should Probably Vote for Ron Paul

You agree with Ron Paul on most of the major issues. If you haven't looked into him yet, you probably should. How you agree with Ron Paul: You and Ron Paul agree that it's time to end the War on Drugs. You and Ron Paul agree that it's time to repeal the Patriot Act. You and Ron Paul agree that the IRS should be abolished. You and Ron Paul agree that the US Constitution has no business defining marriage as "between one man and one woman." You and Ron Paul agree that the government is too big. It's time to give taxpayers their money back. How you disagree with Ron Paul: You and Ron Paul disagree on Iraq. You don't think we should get out as quickly as possible.

Should You Vote for Ron Paul?

-

-

I've held off posting anything about this dark horse in the presidential race until after the first primaries. I've been following his campaign since he threw his hat in the ring, and I had read of him a few times through the years. Ron Paul has a large grass-roots following, and he has raised more independent money than most of the candidates (in either party). At this point in time, I plan to vote for him in the Republican primary on Feb. 5. However, there has been a very disconcerting development about his past that was revealed yesterday in The New Republic. More on that later.
-

I strongly support a vast majority of his positions. I believe that Dr. Paul is the only candidate for true change. His candidacy is a shake-up to the power establishment that the rest of the candidates support. The U.S. government has continually been stealing the liberty of its citizens, but Congressman Paul has a consistent record of opposition to a ruling elite and support of federalism. The adage that "all politics is local" is true, but the federal government continually defies its own limited authority in spite of the Constitution. The Federalist approach to government is more pragmatic, because populism is susceptible to corruption (as witnessed everyday inside the Beltway).

-

The significant positions of his to which I disagree are immigration and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. I believe an "open borders" approach to immigration is more in-line with American values and a profitable economy. I think "closed borders" has more to do with xenophobia than security (considering security risk is very low). In hindsight, I admit the justification and process for the Iraq War was misleading, and the war itself was severely mismanaged (if not criminal). But, I believe the U.S. has a moral and ethical responsibility not to abandon the mess of our own making. That means A LOT of changes in reconstruction management, as well as our foreign policy. Free trade is a remarkable instrument of peace (see Viet Nam). I generally support his non-interventionist foreign policy (which is NOT synonymous with isolationism), but pulling all troops home immediately could likely have as much 'blow-back' as the policies that have brought us to this point. I would think there is a more measured way to pull out of the Middle East without inciting more conflict.

-

Having previously mentioned xenophobia, I am well aware of the article in The New Republic yesterday attacking Ron Paul regarding bigoted views published in a newsletter bearing his name. At first, he refused to respond to questions regarding the article, which is unfortunate since he is a candidate who promotes transparency in government. Later in the day, he did issue a statement stating he did not write, nor does he support, the controversial views purported in these articles. He also "accepts moral responsibility for not paying closer attention" to what went out under his name. I don't know if that's sufficient, but I'm waiting to find out what else will be discussed.

-

I don't believe that anyone is perfect, and I certainly don't expect anything less than flaws from presidential candidates. So, I hope mistakes that Paul has made in the past don't overshadow the libertarian message he has been conveying. Bigotry is not accepted in the majority of libertarian circles than it is in mainstream Republican and Democratic circles. Plenty of kooks have hijacked those party platforms for their own distorted views, so these newsletters should not be associated as a fundamental aspect to libertarian philosophy. In fact, these writing are in stark contrast to classic liberalism and Dr. Paul's publicly espoused views.

-

Almost every pundit I've heard or read has stated that despite the significant support that Ron Paul has generated, he stands little chance and will never be president. They only refer to his campaign as a catalyst for generating stimulating debate over significant issues. I disagree. The fact that he had 10% in Iowa and 9% in New Hampshire shows strong support despite the fact he has very low name recognition across the nation (I think somewhere around 2-3%). He has had strong grass-roots support without much positive mainstream media recognition. It's still early in the campaign, and he has more money and a strong base. Just because his views are outside the "mainstream" does not make his candidacy an automatic failure.

-

I invite you to learn more about Ron Paul and his candidacy. If you truly want change in our government, then consider what he is saying. Perhaps his platform is supportive of issues important to you. I implore you to vote your conscience, but please don't think that support of his candidacy is a waste of time or the positions are inherently wrong by misguided associations.