August 14, 2011

Why We Can't Afford to Have Ron Paul as President

A reader asked me why I have such a low opinion of Rep. Ron Paul and his fan base. I gave him a rather lengthy answer, but my opposition to the candidate himself is summed up well enough in this reference from Rep. Allen West, who has a much better grasp of the way the real world works.

Paul's "hand's off" philosophy if implemented after World War II, would have gleefully let Russia pile nuclear missile batteries in Cuba, and expand in Central and South America unopposed. It would have let the Iron Curtain extend fully over Western Europe, Africa, and the Korean peninsula. It would have certainly led to our decline as a world power, and quite possibly would have plunged free populations into tyranny, or even a third World War.

Simply put, Paul's beliefs, if implemented as policy, would constitute a clear danger to this nation's very existence.

My second objection to Paul is the cult-like followers he has attracted. That are every bit as zealous as the Obamites, and their constant screaming and yelling at events is off-putting (to put it mildly). I've seen enough of cult-leaders with destructive policy agendas. No more.

I'd contemplate sitting at home if it came down to Paul versus Obama. Sadly, I suspect more Americans would simply vote for Obama again in a landslide, assuring our fiscal collapse.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at August 14, 2011 11:00 AM

I noted your objections to Paul, I am certain that you have others but chose his foreign policy. There would have been Russian missles in various places after WWII, yet in reality, those missles were being put in place because we initiated the missle race by do the same in Europe and Turkey. For that matter, who won the cold war? Currently we have a communist as president and we are moving daily to become the reincarnation of the Soviet Union. So I would have to say that the Russians won in the long run.

I know you are very intelligent, but so are many of the followers of Paul. Most that I have seen posting are professionals. I know most of the doctors that I associate with are libertarians. In fact, many endorse the policy of Paul of getting the government out of medical care and returning our rights to obtain medical care as we desire. In short, you go to Walgreen's and buy the drugs you desire without prescription as well as eliminating the "war on drugs". No other politician is doing this, in fact all the Republican front runners desire to push their morality down our throats like the socialist are doing.

Paul is the only real change on the agenda.

Posted by: David Caskey at August 14, 2011 01:52 PM

Well, I hope you reconsider staying home if it is Paul/Obama. Paul would be so busy the first 4 years undoing Obama's mess that he won't have enough time to make a large enough one of his own to worry about. Frankly, he might be the perfect foil, he will push to undo all the intrusive, 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment violations, Patriot Act, TSA crap, he can clean the slate. Paul isn't my first choice, but I will never again stay home and give my vote to the opposition. In 2012 we all must vote ANYONE BUT OBAMA or our country is done for. I don't think we are going to have a perfect candidate, but that is better than the perfectly wrong one we have now.

Posted by: ChrisInKentucky at August 14, 2011 02:40 PM

Paulbots are great at fudging the polls. He has forever done well in straw polls, but come primary time he is forever in single digits for percentage of the vote.
It seems no matter how stupid the idea, or outright effin' nutzo the statement, his followers will simply ignore it. . . or worse. . . think it is a grand idea.
In some ways he would be as bad as 0bama is.

Posted by: JP at August 14, 2011 05:45 PM

Can you name several nutty ideas. I would like to know.

Posted by: David Caskey at August 14, 2011 06:24 PM

Great post. Linked at Libertarian Republican - not my site, but much better known. Blogmeister Dondero also posts for Breitbart.

Also - I'm working to have LR link your coverage of Fast & Spurious. Great work and many thanks.


PS, check-out the new Boberg reverse-feed 9mm. Cheers.

Posted by: Ran at August 14, 2011 07:47 PM

As someone was a literally a card carrying libertarian and still considers himself one (the party left the philosophy, not me), I don't think Ron Paul is cut out for the White House. Yes, I support all of his domestic policies -- but the place to implement those is in Congress. The President's most vital role is Commander in Chief, and I have no confidence in Dr. Paul in that role.

Posted by: Phelps at August 14, 2011 09:50 PM

Paul is bat shit crazy and everyone who follows him must hang upside down to sleep.

Posted by: Scrapiron at August 14, 2011 10:20 PM

RP is dead on target with regard to the Federal Reserve and understanding what makes for a sound economy (the federal government must be put back in the box of powers derived from the Constitution). He is, IMO, right about the futility of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya BUT for the wrong reasons. He is right that we can not afford to be the protectors of the EU or the policeman of the world. He is wrong about illegal immigration and he fails to understand that we have to stay engaged militarily and diplomatically with the world at large and again, for the wrong reasons.

What I admire about RP is that he is consistent. Given a choice between Obama and my cats as president I vote my cats. I acknowledge RP is a bit more prepared to be president that my cats. RP is not my candidate of choice. Gary Johnson comes first, followed by Cain and then Palin. But Obama vs Paul? Paul gets my vote without hesitation.

Posted by: Parker at August 14, 2011 11:07 PM

"What I admire about RP is that he is consistent."

Well, yeah. But Obama is consistent too. Consistency is a virtue only in so far as it is associated with a correct rather than an erroneous belief.

Paul has expressed contempt for the American military on several occasions, the latest of which was the pre-straw poll debate where he characterized one of America's problems as its militarism. He is also an isolationist loon who would have been content to go to war against Hitler only after Nazi Germany attempted to invade America.

He is also consistently anti-Israel. I am not sure that he is anti-Semitic, but he has consistently allowed anti-Semites to tie themselves to him so long as they are right on economic issues.

Posted by: Mark L at August 15, 2011 09:22 AM

Let me help you with something, I don't mean to be hatefull, but go back and read the history of WWII with a critical eye. I have corresponded with Paul in the past and know that he has accomplished this task. When you read the history from a different aspect, you will understand that the US was little different from the Germans or the Japanese. As horrible as these people where, we were just about as bad. The best way of taking on Germany would have been to allow the Russians and Germans to have it out. Supply both sides. Then eliminate the winner. The British were a non-factor as they were defeated and didn't know it. Now I am not defending either side and don't condone the actions of either side. But there are more than one story.

Posted by: david7134 at August 15, 2011 10:25 AM

"When you read the history from a different aspect, you will understand that the US was little different from the Germans or the Japanese. As horrible as these people where, we were just about as bad."

Put down the bong and step away from fantasy back into reality. Anyone that can seriously say that is delusional. To be charitable.

Remind me: how many death camps did the United States run? How many POWs did we use for medical experiments? How many did we use to test chemical and biological weapons? Remind me how much territory we annexed after our victories.

We did bad things during that war, but to claim there is little difference between the US to Germany or Japan is idiotic. No, it is not idiotic -- it is nuts.

Posted by: Mark L at August 15, 2011 01:43 PM

Ok, so various politicians keep blathering Iran with nukes is "unacceptable". Just what do you suggest doing about it? Sanctions have proven to be useless, DC hasn't got the guts to nuke them, so there is nothing going to be done about it & it is really annoying to hear the "unacceptable" crap. At least Ron Paul (& yes he is a nut) acknowledges we arent going to do anything.

Posted by: Max at August 17, 2011 12:33 PM