Ron Paul for President

I will tell you that four years ago, if somebody had told me this would happen, I'd have told him he was out of his mind.  I freely admit I was bitterly opposed to this man in 2008, and I repeatedly conveyed my own 2¢ about him here, here, here, here, here, here and here.  However, in the time since Sarah Palin announced she would not run for President, time which I've spent examining the current field of candidates seeking the Republican nomination and contemplating who to support in the primaries, I have slowly come to the conclusion the best candidate in the race is none other than Ron Paul.

Over the years, many complaints have been brought up about the Congressman's qualifications, stances and history, so I'm addressing them right now before I explain why I'm supporting Ron Paul.


The most explosive complaint aimed at Congressman Paul involves a series of newsletters published under his name about two decades ago, newsletters which are said to contain hateful, racist, bigoted and anti-Semitic content. The charges are not new, as they've been brought up on a number of occasions over the past 15 years, but the thing which bothers me about the newsletters is that the controversial content doesn't sound like anything the Congressman has either said or done (which calls into question the authorship of these newsletters), yet most commentators (not just his detractors) haven't addressed this oddity.  It leaves me more suspicious of the people who bring it up, suspecting them of trying to smear the man (as one guy contends).  I do fault the Congressman for what has been a bad attempt on his part at dealing with the matter; although he has accepted responsibility for the newsletters, he certainly could've done a better job than he has over the years.

The most visible complaint has to do with a number of Congressman Paul's supporters, individuals who are 9/11 Truthers, neo-Nazis, John Birch Society members, conspiracy theorists and other like-minded people considered to be outright nutcases.  Detractors obviously remember the famous saying about the company one keeps, but there's a problem with the concern they express: it's misplaced.  Ron Paul has not actively sought the support of Truthers, neo-Nazis, Birchers, conspiracy theorists or the like; they chose to support him, not the other way around.

The one complaint with genuine credence concerns the Congressman's stances on foreign policy, from Iran and Israel to our national security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is also a complaint which has been voiced by a larger number of people, particularly those who've expressed enthusiastic support for Congressman Paul on most (if not all) domestic issues, but within the same breath, express trepidation (if not outright opposition) to his stances on foreign policy.  I know it all too well, for I certainly was expressing the same concerns four years ago, but in examining his foreign policy stances, however, I've realized much of the concern is baseless.

Yes, Ron Paul supports removing foreign aid to Israel (as he supports ending foreign aid entirely), but it's apparent he supports Israel.  He's spoken of maintaining a strong national defense, but that doesn't mean he'll wait until a whole city is taken out. Consider this quote from his website: “using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks”; does that sound like someone who'll wait for another 9/11 to happen?  I may have thought so in 2007/8, but I'm highly doubtful today.  The one issue I disagree with Congressman Paul concerns Iran, as he advocates free trade instead of applying sanctions to Iran; regardless of whether sanctions are working against Iran or not, the idea of free trade being the solution is one I don't subscribe to.

The complaints I've addressed here have led Congressman Paul's critics to claim he's a racist, a Truther, an isolationist, anti-Semitic, anti-war, and pretty much anything that could further cast him as a full-blown kook who belongs on the fringe of American politics.  Let me put my response in a very simple term to those of you who believe these claims about Ron Paul: You're wrong.

Ron Paul has not said a word or committed an act that could possibly warrant his being called a racist, or a 9/11 Truther, for that matter (Dave Nalle of the Republican Liberty Caucus attests to that).  Some of you believe his being a non-interventionist is the same as being an isolationist, but I have a hard time believing anyone who supports free trade can be an isolationist.  And I will repeat: Congressman Paul's stances on Israel does not make anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic (that also doesn't make him a neo-Nazi, either).  As for the anti-war label, one thing also needs to be made clear: Ron Paul has expressed willingness to go to war, but only under certain circumstances (as stipulated in the Constitution), and should the green light be given, he favors a get in-win-get out approach.  To me, that doesn't sound like a typical anti-war candidate.  When it comes to foreign policy, the problem has more to do with how Ron Paul states his positions (something Dave Nalle also addresses) rather than the stances themselves.

Now it's time to address the reasons why I've chosen to support Ron Paul in 2012, and the number one reason can be found by looking at his Plan To Restore America.  This is a plan aimed at serious cuts in spending, rolling back oppressive government regulations, cutting taxes, addressing entitlements, our monetary policy, and putting an end to government waste.  It is also a plan aimed at shrinking the size of the federal government as it stands today.  Add in also his free market approach to other economic issues (as well as energy issues), the fact is pro-life, he advocates greater adherence to the Constitution, has got a pretty good idea on tackling illegal immigration, is pro-Second Amendment, supports Right To Work, and supports homeschooling, and that just about sums it up.

There is one last reason why I'm supporting Ron Paul for President: Of all the candidates currently seeking the Republican nomination, this is the one candidate I have the most trust in.  I don't, quite frankly, trust Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman or Rick Perry to put the nation back on the right track, and I don't know for sure if either Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann can do the job.  I have my qualms about Ron Paul, such as his naivete on dealing with Iran and the motivation behind radical Islamic terrorists, and I don't believe he is the only candidate who can lead the way in the fundamental restoration of our nation, but he is the best candidate for the job in 2012.

I hope, when the time comes for me to vote in the Republican primary this May, I will cast my vote for Ron Paul.