Ron Paul for President 2008?

As promised, this second blog will be dedicated to Republican presidential hopeful, and my choice for who is needed as President during these times, Dr. Ron Paul. First though, let me quickly clue you all in on what seems to be the most exciting presidential election in quite some time.

As some of you who are reading this may have been as well, I was initially astounded by the number of candidates running for president in 2008. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee...just to name a few. In fact, so many poll changes have happened in the past 2 months, one need almost check up every day on the latest polls to figure out who is edging who and in what states.

I think the bottom line with this election is that Americans are ready for CHANGE. Our current President sits at a 58% disapproval rating, and 68% of Americans feel this country is headed on the wrong track (CBS News poll). Even worse, only 28% of Americans feel that the US will ultimately achieve its aims in Iraq. Perhaps what complicates the situation even worse is simply how complicated the war itself is. On top of that, other domestic issues plague this administration - illegal immigrants, a failing healthcare system, privatization of social security (should we, shouldn't we), the economy (the USD continues to lose value), the Patriot Act, etc etc. And of course, there's the various scandals - Dick Cheney (and conflicts of interest with Halliburton), Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, the destruction of CIA "Torture Tapes"...the list goes on.

After eight years of a neoconservative administration, November 4th 2008 couldn't come any quicker. But how does one go about choosing the candidate that is best for them? Will the Christian fundamentalist right finally settle on one particular candidate such as a Mike Huckabee, or will they think outside of their moralistic box for once and perhaps choose another stronger Republican who will get the US fiscal house in order - perhaps a Romney or McCain? Will those older folks who make up the democratic base have enough pull to launch Clinton as their candidate (the first woman primary winner)? Or will the younger Generation X and Millenial Democrats who typically support Obama be able to put the Illinois senator as the Democratic candidate for 2008 (the first African-American to win the primary)? The questions and outcome possibilities here surely are endless and exciting...and quite unprecedented in US History.

Because of the sheer amount of issues wrapped around the election and thus possibilities for future blog posts, I'm going to try and limit this blog to strictly discussing Dr. Ron Paul - but look for future posts about the issues listed above.

First, allow me to explain how I got to the point of supporting Paul. I am a very open minded person, and so last summer I began to read a couple books some of the candidates had put out - "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama, and "Leadership" by Rudolph Guiliani. Both books had their strong points, particularly Obama's. His charisma and ability to plainly address the issues with such poised demeanor is truly remarkable. I first heard of Ron Paul though on my college campus, as many of my friends constantly let their support of him be known. As most people who first hear about him, my initially thought was...this guy is far too radical to ever truly have any credible sway in the election run. One particular conversation I had about Paul was with a friend named Sara. Over dinner, she kept going on and on about how Paul wanted to get rid of the income tax, the IRS, the department of education. I thought she was simply crazy for supporting such a radical candidate! And then I began research of my own...

And by research, I mean that I conveniently "googled" Ron Paul - and one of the key "label words" I found with nearly every article was the word "Constitutionalist." Paul, who arguably has the most consistent voting record in Washington, has never once voted for any bill or measure that violates the Constitution. In fact, what really distinguishes Paul from the rest of the Republicans is that he is against the Iraq war, simply on the grounds that it is an ILLEGAL war. According to the Consitution, the President does not have the power without congressional approval to fight any war, and this was clearly violated with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people (this hasn't happened since 1941)!

One of Paul's ideas which I like the most though is the sovereignty of the STATE - no other candidate on either side will talk about this. Paul feels like issues such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, gun control, the war on drugs - these all should be decided on by the STATES. None of these are federal issues! If people from a fairly liberal state like Massachusetts, New York, or California, feel like they want to allow gay marriage or abortion - those states have the right to act in that matter. But if a typically conservate state such as Texas, Tennessee, or Mississippi feels like it is not in their state's best interest to support those issues, than abortion and gay marriage would be outlawed in those states. Essentially, Paul feels like the people that make up the state of Texas know best what Texans want and states like New Jersey or New Hampshire shouldn't have any say in what goes on in the deep South.

The interesting thing about this point of view is that it is completely in line with what our Founding Fathers had in mind. With regard to Iraq, Paul continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties (ex. the Patriot Act). He believes a "JUST" declaration of war after the September 11, 2001 attacks would have been enough against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.

What has surprised me the most about Ron Paul is just how SENSIBLE his ideas about the economy really are (he has written several economic policy books). Paul believes the recent crash of the housing market proves the country's economic system is at a "crises point."

"If China continues to loan us money to subsidize our account deficits, the dollar is going to collapse," he said. "They are not taking our dollars as readily, that's why the dollar is down. The measurement of the economic crises we are facing is in the value of the dollar." The self-described Libertarian has said deficit spending, maintaining troops and military bases overseas, and social entitlement programs will eventually cause a breakdown of America's economy. His administration, if elected, would be dedicated to massively cutting back on federal spending - which brings me back to where I was this past fall, when I had every intention of voting Democrat...

Keep in mind that traditionally, Republicans have stood for small government spending and low taxes, and the Democrats have stood for large government and higher taxes. But the situation that we have now is that BOTH parties are big government and big spending - the chief difference is where the money goes. The Republicans believe American money is best spent on "nation-building," funding military bases in hundreds of countries, deficit spending, and financing a war. It is important to note that this is not the old-Reagan-Republican "conservative" view, but the Republican "neoconservative" view. (Neocons believe that big government spending is OK if it is justified by war, nation building, or protecting the country, whereas the traditional conservative does NOT).

The Democrats stand for spending American money on measures of social reform, a better funded healthcare system, and an improved educational system. In considering what party to align myself with, I saw that both parties were wanting to spend alot of money, but I felt that at the very least all the money our government spends should be put back into our OWN healthcare, educational system, social programs, etc. Until reading up on Ron Paul, I had every intention of supporting Barack Obama (and I still hope he gathers the momentum needed to top Clinton in the primaries). Still, it wasn't until I really read and studied Paul's views about how this country SHOULD be governed, that I began to lend him an ear.

"A lot of people say the economy is great, but there should be some concern because if you talk to low- or middle-income people today, they are hurting," Paul claims. "If you allow governments to print the money, then there is no restraint on government because they can always rely on inflation."

Perhaps my favorite story I've heard about Ron Paul thus yet involved a bill that was brought up for a congressional vote regarding 5 medals that the federal government wanted to fund, a total of about $20,000. The medals were to be given in memory to several humanitarian heroes, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa. Being the only congressman who voted against the bill (he is often referred to as Dr.No), Paul had a chance to stand up and address the house. He commented, "While I do believe that these men and women deserve these medals, I do not believe it the job of the federal government to use taxpayer dollars to do so. In fact, (he reaches into pocket) I'll put $100 of my own money on the table here, and if each one of you in this room will match me, we'll have more than enough money to fund these medals." Paul then sat down and waited, while NONE of his colleagues stood to match the money. Paul then stood back up in front of his peers and simply stated, "It's alot easier spending other people's money than it is your own."

...so what are your thoughts about Dr. Ron Paul? what about the other candidates, who do you think is best prepared to lead our country for the next four years and why? leave your thoughts for all to read!