Ron Paul?

A friend of mine supports Ron Paul for president. Admittedly, his libertarian views are very appealing to many people feeling as though the Republican mainstream has hung them out to dry. However, there are deep issues that I have with Ron Paul, very deep issues.

My friend and I got into a discussion regarding Ron Paul, and they have graciously given me permission to post it here:


Please tell me you only joined the group supporting Ron Paul as a joke.


No, I wasn’t joking. Why should I? Go ahead and convince me! =] I’m game.


His political platform is mostly appealing, I do agree with that. However, he supports pulling us out of a war that, regardless of whether you agree with the necessity of the war or no, you must understand to pull out is to give a victory to an enemy who will not accept our defeat graciously but who will next bring the war to our doorstep again. His consistency on the issues he is most vocal about on the campaign trail is also less than stellar, with a marked propensity for bringing “pork” projects to his district.

Finally, and I know he himself does not espouse these beliefs, but white supremacists have jumped on his campaign, contributing money and support. Ron Paul has not repudiated these supporters or returned their money or prevented their support.

He is not a leader in the sense America needs. And while the the pickings are few in the field, I think of all the candidates running with an (R) after their name, Paul is least qualified.


We are in a war that can’t be won. Don’t you remember that Bush declared victory over 4 years ago? Since then, 3,735 American soldiers have lost their lives. If that is victory, then we can’t win this war.

Do you remember Vietnam? We lost that war, and had the common sense to get out of there, (although it wasn’t until we lost 58,000 of our guys) and now? We trade with them! Our relations with Vietnam are as they should be with any country!

If a forthcoming attack is your concern, think about this. When Ron Paul talks about bringing our troops home, he’s talking about bringing home ALL of the troops from over 700 military bases, in over 160 different countries, all over the world. We would not no longer be growing resentment in any of these countries, who all deserve, as much as we do, to run their countries how the want, and not have a bigger, more powerful government come and tell them how to live. How would you feel if China or Russia came over here, and built 15 military bases or more, and started telling us how to run our lives? Would you sit back, and let them? I wouldn’t… I would do everything in my power, (which isn’t much=]) to stop them!

So, who would you stand behind for the next president of the US?


First, what about the war we are currently in is failing so very badly that there is no way the war can be one? Have you followed the news beyond what has been force-fed us by the media? Read the post here to see one side of the new growth of freedom in Baghdad. Even the New York Times, a paper arguably more invested than any other in our defeat in Iraq, last week published on the front page an article telling of the good that is occurring there.

We lost Vietnam because the politicians (the revered but Clintonesque JFK and the worst president in history Lindon Baines Johnson) would not allow the military to prosecute the war as it needed to be. The president selected the military targets, micromanaging far beyond what any true and wise leader would have or should have done. There was a small but vocal contingent at home which proclaimed the injustice of the war, getting their faces (and other body parts) smeared all over the evening news as our country fought for it’s soul. Public figures such as Jane Fonda openly consorted with the enemy while our soldiers, not allowed to fight as they should have, were captured and imprisoned and tortured. We still do not know the fate of many of those imprisoned, as the Vietnamese Communists who gained power through the pride and ineptitude of our leaders at the time, persecuting and killing many of their own countrymen as well as our servicemen.

Comparing that just but unjustly-prosecuted war with the conflict we are currently in, the times when the current was going poorly coincide with times when the military leadership has taken away responsibility and power from their field-level commanders, much as in the Vietnam war. One of the the reasons freedom from tyranny is succeeding right now and we are experiencing success in our military operations is that the generals are giving direction and responsibility and allowing the people under them to work and decide and wage their battles as they know best.

And regarding the justice of the war. Who do you believe attacked us in 1992, attempting to topple the trade towers? And again in 2001? The same people made both attempts. And regarding specifically the portion of the conflict in Iraq, yes, we have not found weapons of mass destruction. But operating on the intelligence we had then, all the leaders, not just Bush, not just Republicans, not just ‘hawks’, and not just Americans, but the UN security council (regardless of the morality of their position) supported us in our use of force to depose Saddam Hussein and protect the world from any furtherance of his tyranny, either on his own people or on others through his state-sponsoring of terrorists and their weapons systems. Important to remember in this is that while we have not found any actual WMDs we have not found evidence that they were not or never there. Instead, the consensus is that they were trucked across the border to Syria and Iran, both countries with despotic governments who are not shy about broadcasting their intentions of world domination by their religion by their leadership.

As far as defense goes. The worst defense is the kind where all your assets are kept close by. With the world getting “smaller” as technology and transportation move more and more people further and further more and more quickly, and with weapons capable of striking anyplace from anywhere in mere hours, being “on-site” and in the region of conflict is a much more effective defense.

Regarding the bad feelings we are breeding by our presence in the regions. First, America is the only superpower in the history of the world which has neither forced it’s culture upon those it is around as superior, nor have we failed to relinquish sovereign control of the nations we’ve fought in to legitimate governments of those nations in most cases (several islands in the Pacific being the only exceptions to that). Instead, we fight alongside indigent warriors to free their nations, then we spend billions upon billions of dollars to shore up those nations economies and social structures. The hotbeds of hatred spring up wherever they will regardless of our presence. And to remove from the area would only grant unwelcome power to an unworthy underclass of malcontents and misfits.

I am not sure who I’m supporting for the nomination. I will support any Republican nominee in the main presidential race because: 1, they are all and each morally and pragmatically superior to any of the Democrat nominees, and 2, third party candidates are never a viable option except to take votes away from one of the two main party’s candidate (yes, liberal third partiers… keep up the good work, grin).

As far as the nominees, I’m becoming more and more convinced that Rudy is bad news, and his promises to set up conservative judges are likely to be empty. Romney, I think most of his detractors are picking at straws in their critiques of him, but I do not think I’ll vote for him in the nomination for his lack of history to his moral beliefs regarding abortion. Thompson is (little) talk and I think he’ll fade away soon. Huckabee looks good but I’ve heard those close to him call him a pro-life liberal. I think he’d make an excellent VP if given a position of counsel and some authority. I’m not sold on him.

Of all these, I think Huckabee, if he shows strength continuing into these upcoming primaries, is my preferred choice, pending a bit more investigation.

We didn’t continue the conversation further mainly due to busy-ness.

Huckabee is looking to be less and less of a man I’d want to lead this country. He’d make an admirable vice-president, but his fiscal and many of his social programs are not good. He does not see that the best way to help people is to remove all government-sponsored assistance and as much government-required hindrance and and encourage as much private assistance as possible.

Instead his proposals include large amounts of money to be given to people by the government. Government money is never free and it always comes with strings. And it costs you and me. Why not just take less to start with?

But Ron Paul is the last person this nation needs. He does not appreciate the necessity of remaining in Iraq to bring it to a place of stability. A process in which much progress has already been made. He is not a man of his word.

8 thoughts on “Ron Paul?”

  1. “I am not sure who I’m supporting for the nomination. I will support any Republican nominee in the main presidential race because: 1, they are all and each morally and pragmatically superior to any of the Democrat nominees, and 2, third party candidates are never a viable option except to take votes away from one of the two main party’s candidate (yes, liberal third partiers… keep up the good work, grin).”

    Funny how familiar this sounds. I wonder if this mind set will continue even at the rate at which Reps are becoming yester yer Dems. Hey in 20 years we’ll want Hillary over any Rep….. Its a bankrupt mentality based on fear eventhough one often argues its based on practicality.

  2. Well, I agree it’s slim pickin’s on the Republican side, but I still favor McCain lately. I haven’t found a reason not to like him. But I surely don’t want to see Guiliani get the nomination. I don’t really trust the others to do what they say they will do.

  3. I have several problems with McCain. I do not believe he is a conservative. Principled? Yes. Conservative? No.

    He is too anxious to deal with the Democrats and Leftists alike. Politics requires working across the aisle to achieve compromise. But what good is compromise if we’re the only ones compromising?

    If we sell the ranch what’s the point of tending the cattle?

    McCain doesn’t believe that Bush has tried hard enough to “reach out” when I believe most of Bushes problems came from his desire to reach out. The Democrats and Leftists in Congress are not the same as those found in the Texas Statehouse.

    In Washington it is about power. And to confirm this you only need see the abundant idiocy of the policies supported and proposed by most of the Democrats and Leftists in Congress.

    Further, McCain’s involvement in the Campaign Finance ‘reform’ package several years back which turned out to be a incumbent protection package and a serious threat against true freedom of speech (no it doesn’t harm the free speech pornographers and ‘artists’ use today, just the free speech you and I use and rely on to help make sure the election cycles are as open and just as possible).

    Finally, his involvement in the “Gang of 14” which helped the Democrats to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominees.

    Yes, John McCain had a major role in supporting the filibustering of judicial nominees, preventing the Congress from voting on them and allowing woeful shortfalls in the number of judges serving on the benches across our country.

    I have no doubt he considers himself an honorable man, but I must say that I get the impression from him that he believes the country owes him the presidency for his years spent as a POW. I respect and honor him for his service and sacrifice. But I wish that he would retain his honor by leaving public life or deciding which side of the aisle his true support comes from.

  4. The “Gang of 14” is an excellent point! I’ll have to look into that closer. That’s a bummer too b/c like I said, slim pickin’s for the GOP.

  5. Define the status quo?

    If you’re talking about run-away spending, members of America’s leadership who consider themselves above the law (mostly besides GW, he’s had a few places where he seemed to think so, but there are members of congress who are much more invested in their own superiority), social policy which damages more than it repairs, the hijacking of family values and true civil liberties by agendized people seeking to give some rational to their sin identity? Yes, I am against the status quo.

    If you’re talking about a president who tells us what he thinks, why he thinks it, and sticks to his guns no matter the cost, using the resources at his disposal to work to bring about what he feels to be the best way to keep us safe (not too happy about that, but he’s been honest) and ethical (think stem cell research and judges and such)? I’m all for the status quo.

  6. And while Ron Paul has a few good ideas such as getting the government out of most of the pies it’s got it’s fingers in, his moral leadership and his foreign policy are more akin to Pre WWII republican disengagement, which did no one any favors.

Leave a Reply