[quote]ryanjm wrote:
I hope Ron Paul wins. He’s completely right about foreign policy issues, and right about what the Republican party used to be about: smaller government, less spending, non-interventionist. Now it’s all corporate and both sides spend big, they only differ on what they spend it on.
The thing is, there are a lot of people out there that like the ideas Paul talks about, and when they hear him speak they remember what “Republican” used to mean. That’s how my parents voted, and that’s what I defined myself as when I was younger.
And with regard to his comments on the founding fathers being non-interventionist, I believe what he is referring to is the fact that only Congress can declare war, and that they had good reason not to vest that power in one man who could go off and start wars willy-nilly.
In any event, I think if every american were forced to listen to a 15 minute speach by each candidate instead of 30 second sound-bites, Paul would win. It’s just that Faux News rigs the debates by asking Paul questions meant to marginalize him from the “major” candidates like “You want the troops home, and so does Hillary Clinton, how are you guys any different?”.
And if you noticed on his info/stats they listed his education, and then “background info” only said he was a congressman, and libertarian–no mention of his military service or background as doctor.
I also think his public speaking skills aren’t as good as they could be, because he often gets bogged down in the kind of fiscal analysis that only a person who studies the stuff can understand, which doesn’t play well to the general populace. However, that kind of understanding would serve him well as president.
An interesting tidbit that I think is pretty telling: Paul has received more money from the troops than all other candidates combined. Should give you an idea what they think of the war.[/quote]
ryan,
paul is a nutjob who doesn’t function within the basic confines of a democracy. He’s a ross perot type demagogue. He basically whips the Rage Against the Machiners into a froth.
However, no one can honestly suppose that this guy is capable or willing to forge compromise on an issue.
Therefore, he is not fit to govern in a democracy.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that ron paul is correct on every single issue. He has to work within the confines of our existing government in order to effect change.
For instance, scuttling an entrenched bureaucracy like the IRS requires the ability to forge compromises and attract allies.
ron paul is an outcast within his own party. Unless you advocate ARMED fanatics FORCING paul’s will, he would be completely ineffectual.
Look to history for examples of successful Presidents. For example, Andrew Jackson took out Nicholas Biddle and the U.S. Bank through sheer force of personality. People were inspired by his leadership. The Force of his words and actions took down what was a rather popular institution at the time. His tremendous personal gravity and political popularity carried the day and his party.
Contrast that to the “I feel sorry for you looks” shown by most Republicans whenever ron paul opens his mouth. Further, any lip service given to ron paul by the partisan dems must be viewed through the prism of their self-interest. They know he couldn’t carry any state or region. He’d be simple for hillary to steamroll.
In short, he brings nothing to the table except simple solutions to complex problems. It sounds nice to the “My Dad didn’t pay enough attention to my juvenile rants” crowd. But to most responsible adults, it comes across as naive and quite preachy.
JeffR