As we get closer to time for the Georgia GOP Primary, I’ve decided to issue a formal endorsement. It might not mean a whole lot to some folks, and I have little doubt many of you will disagree, but I’m throwing my support, and my vote, behind Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is kind of a unique candidate. Most folks I talk to agree with him on at least 85 percent of his platform. However, the other 15 percent apparently is so horrible in some minds that he simply can’t be allowed to be president. I’d like to address some of the comments I’ve heard about Dr. Paul.
If he’s elected, the United States will be destroyed…literally. Really? Now, I accept that a lot of folks don’t agree with Ron Paul’s non-interventionist stances, but to say the nation will be destroyed? This is usually in response to Paul’s stance regarding leaving Iran alone and the thought seems to go that if we leave Iran alone, they’re still going to hate us and will eventually nuke us.
Well, I’m not in complete agreement with Paul that if we leave Iran alone, they’ll suddenly like us. I just don’t see that happening. However, I also don’t think they’ll suddenly nuke us when they have no cause to do so. Not only that, but does anyone seriously think that Iran would have the means to destroy the entire nation? No. Not only that, but an attack on the U.S. also calls for an immediate response…and that isn’t intervention. I have little doubt that Paul would order a response should that happen.
He’s a hypocrite because he puts earmarks into the budget and then votes against it so he can say he doesn’t approve of them. Now, earmarks are an issue and I can understand a voter not liking earmarks. And yes, Ron Paul has put his fair share of earmarks in the budget…but so has every other GOP candidate. However, Paul is also the only one who actually votes against those earmarks. The people of his district expect some of their tax dollars to come back to them after all, but he’s also never hidden what he does from a living soul.
Like many other voters, I’d love to see earmarks as a quaint remnant from the past, chatted about over drinks after dinner while pondering way-back-when. I don’t see that happening in the near future regardless of who gets elected. I’m not thrilled about his playing the game, but I find it far more tolerable than how his opponents have done it.
Going to the gold standard is crazy talk! I’ve heard this one more than once, and I’m not sure I understand where the vehemence comes from. Right now, the only thing backing our money is faith; faith that the United States government will do what’s right. Unfortunately, for many of us, we’re not exactly filled with faith in our government.
However, the gold standard is an objective standard that would mean faith in the government wouldn’t matter nearly as much as faith in gold. There are more and more people who believe that our money should be backed by some form of commodity rather than simply faith, and with good reason.
Ron Paul isn’t a perfect candidate for me. I disagree with him on several things. My ideal candidate was former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, a two-term government with real small government credentials as a background as a successful businessman. However, Johnson was excluded from most polls, which kept him from being included in most debates, so he dropped out of the GOP primary and is now seeking the Libertarian Party nomination.
Ron Paul, however, is the only candidate I can bring myself to vote for come November. I’m tired of picking fights all over the world, watching the White House tout “spending cuts” which are really just cuts in projected increases over the next few years, and generally getting in people’s way. While many people voting in this year’s primary claim they value liberty, they seem to be siding with candidates who have a track record of restricting that very liberty.
Maybe it’s me, but I’d rather have a guy who’s voting record is consistently pro-liberty rather than just count on election year rhetoric.