I’ve had another change of position which is sure to make me popular with some people. When I originally looked at endorsing Ron Paul I had some reservations. Over the five months since then those reservations have disappeared. My current position is that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that would bring real change to the White House. There are reasons to choose another candidate, but if you are looking for substantial change instead of new approaches to politics as usual then your only option is Ron Paul.
I am not blind to the challenges that he faces, but Ron Paul has been gaining momentum in the form of supporters (converts such as myself) and cash – he is raising as much money as John McCain and spending much less so he is prepared to keep running for a long time. Ron Paul also has something else in his favor – none of his supporters are passive in their support.
It’s funny that the only candidate who would really change things is one who has been in Congress for two decades.
I’ve been following his campaign and speeches for a while, now, too. He’s more and more impressive. Could it be that you and I agree on something? 🙂
MRKH
Sounds like we do.
David,
I have long thought that Ron Paul’s ideas are very good. He combines the fiscal libertarian with the social conservative, which puts him in my ideological corner. I would be proud to have a congressman such as Ron Paul representing me in congress. But that’s where I think he ought to stay.
I fear that to bring real change to the culture of Washington, Ron Paul would be an ineffective president. His principles of what should be are great, but the president doesn’t make laws – that’s the job he’s had in congress for all these years.
What I believe we need in Washington is not just someone with the right ideas, but with the right combination of past experience and future intent to revamp the executive system. I want to see a president who will wield executive authority with strength and dignity, and who will use it to make the executive branch of government work like a business or a household. Mitt Romney, of all the candidates running, is the only one (in my way of thinking) that most appropriately brings together right thinking with the right kind of action. Ron Paul wants laws to change – as he should: he’s in congress. Mitt Romney wants the office of president to change – focusing on real executive responsibilities.
Jason,
Your perception of Ron Paul sounds quite similar to what I thought of him five months ago.
The primaries allow for a different mix of idealism and pragmatism than is required in the general election. Living in Utah is also different than living in Missouri. In Missouri my votes might count for something in both the primary and the general election. In Utah, regardless of what I do, Utah will vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries and the Republican nominee (whoever it ends up being) in the general election.
Ron Paul would actually have the guts to say “Congress has made the law; now let them enforce it!” It’d be like Andy Jackson all over again. I say that smells like awesome.
We might see a new struggle defining the balance of powers between the branches of government. Lately the president has been nearly irrelevant and before the midterm elections Congress basically rubber-stamped whatever the president asked for. Neither of those situations is healthy for the country.
Sweet post.
Go Ron Paul!