Ron Paul: A Man II Would Support Against Obama

Why would I vote for Ron Paul for President, in a general election against Barack Obama, even though I cannot say the same about Joh Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, or even Mitt Romney and Rick Perry (as to the last two, I have not made up my mind)?


Is it because I agree with Ron Paul on most things? No. Paul is an ISOLATIONIST of the tyupe of the type of the old-type conservatives (mainly pre-World War II, and definiely pre-Goldwater). For me, the type of isolationism advocated by Paul was discredited at Pearl Harbor for all time (as reconfirmed on 9/11). Thisis the main reason I could not support Paul for the Repubklican nomination (absent everyone I could support dropping out). Further, Paul is the ONLY person, of whom I am aware, who would dismantle more of the Federal Government than I would. But if it werfe not for the isolationism, this would probably just encourage me to support him for the nominatioin. Still, this foreign policy quirk of Paul is a SERIOUS thing.


Look at Iran, and the Republican debate on Thursday. Paul lsaid that he suported the RIGHT of Iran to seek nuclear weapons, just like any other country. Paul even opposes SANCTINS on Iran, because that kind of interference with other countries is what gets us into wars and international compications (according to Paul). Paul believes we should mind our own business. I say that kind of ostrich philosophy leads to something like Pearl Harbor.


That leads us back to WHY? Why would I be more willing to see Paul as President of the United States than Obama, or even most establishment Repubilcans. Do you read this blog? (as you should). If so, and you understand what you have read, you know that I am willing to OPPOSE Repubicans that I feel are incompatible with my view of how this country needs to be governed, even if it means Barack Obama as President. I took that very positino with John McCain--not supporting Obama, but refusing to support McCain. What you may not understand is that my positioin has nothing to do with requriring ideological "purity"--requiring that a candidate agree with me in almost everything to get my vote. That is not really my problem. My problem is Repubicans who smile at me, say they agree with me, and then stab me in the back (while sniggering about how much of a HICK I am to believe all of those things that I say I believe, when I need to be a "pragmatist" and realize that principles cannot run this country.


There is a chool of thought out there--primarily among the mainstream media and the "establishment" types--that ONLY a "pragmatist" can run this country. They are really very arrogant babout this--especially when their view of "pragmatism" just happens to coincide with what THEY believe are the proper policies (even if they lie about what they really believe). These ar th epeople who say that "social issues" are not important, and then (like disDishonest Jack Cafferty) say that they will never votge for a conservative BECAUSE of social issues. These are fundamentally dishonest people, trying to AVOID debating their positon on any issue on the grounds that such a debate is "divisive". Better to simply agree with THEIR position, and avoid all of this "division". Dishonest hypoocrites--a term which applies to almost all of the mainstream media,, AND establishment politicians. These are the people who do 'politics as usual".


Ron Paul is not dishonest. He is the most honest man in politics. It is like George Washington and the cherry tree. If you are honest enough to DEFEND Iran, then you are more honest than eve I am. I am not saying that all honest people have to defend Iran, which I believe is an evil countgry that represents the worst danger to peace in the world out there. What I am saying is that you KNOW a man like Paul is honest almost to a fault, if he is willing to take his principles so far as to even oppose sanctions against Iran.


In other words, with Paul you know what you are getting. He is CONSISTENT. He blieves in frfeedom. He believes in not interfering with other countries, and belileves in international freedom as much as he believes in domestic freedom. He oposes a big Federal Government, and MOST of the present Federal Government, because he righty considers it the main danger to freedom in the country. He is almost a fanatic libertarina (more than me, although I call myself a libertarian conservative).


What can I say? I ADMIRE Ron Paul You might think I am a little condescending, since I am willing to say he is slightly nuts. But I hope he would extend me the courtesy, if he knew me, of saying the same thing about me. I would rather have a man whoo operates from principle in the White House than another "politics as usual" politician. I am willing to take the risk that his frreign policy will get us in real policy. I know where he stands, and I am resaonbly comfortable--if a little nervous--about putting the country in the hands of a man like that. Fr me, it is a lot easier to forgive a man or woman who disagrees with me than it is to tolerare a man or a woman whose sole goal is to SNOW me. That, by the way, applies to EVERY sinlge person on the Democratic left. Deception is their stock in trade, and I cannot abide it (along with believing that their poolicies will destroy this country).


I don't agree with Governor Christie of New Jersey, on a lot of things. I believe--subject to more exposure--that I would be willing to vote for him for President. I was attracted to politics--not as a participant but as an interested peon--by Barry Golkdwater. The attraction was, again, that Barry Goldwater was REAL. He believed in things. The same can be said of Ronald Regan--my hero and role model for what a politician should be like.


Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. But he shares many of the same qualities. lPaul knows where he stands, and yet is not that arrogant abut it. He does not have Reagan's sense of humor, but you get the feeling that he is willing to believe that other peole can believe differently from him without being condescended to, or insulted by assuming that they will betray THEIR principles just for "politics as usual" (although I am sure Paul knows that is happening, and hates it).


In short, I would be GLAD to vote for Ron Paul for President, even if I have disavowed the Republican Party forever. I will not say that about most Repubicans. Still, I cannot bring myself to support hm for the nomination. I am jsut too certain his foreign policy is misguided. But "misguided" is better than UNPRINCIPLED, and that is the word that applies to most politicians. Maybe it is short sighted of e not to support Paul for the nomination. But I jsut can't. I support Bachmann--not as consistent as Puaul but basically as principled. And I would support Rick Santorum over Paul. However, I would support Paul for Prfesident, as a man I consider having the intellectual integrity to be a good President, even if he disagrees with me on a number of things.


There are many things I can't stand about many modern Republican politicians. Being "slightly nuts" is not one of them. I admire Ron Paul, and I am glad he is running for President.


P.S. No spell checkig or proofreading (bad eyesight).