What's wrong with Ron Paul?

No one is perfect, but I will take this man and his flaws against a Giuliani and his abortion stance any day, a Romney and his flip flopping any day, any Democrat running, or for that matter, the present inept governemental leadership.

 

I do like Paul's position on the war, but I do believe that he's living in a dream world. IMO, libertarianism is not feasible in the contemporary world.

 

I disagree somewhat. I belive liberterianism can work. That isn't my problem with Ron Paul. He's too pro-choice, too inconsistent, too much pork and earmarks. I want a solid conservative, not a Rudy, Ron, or Mitt.

 

Great, now we are starting to base our opinion of the man from the people that follow him?!? And because he won't distance himself from these "people" we are to hold that against him.

Geezz what next?

Name one person running that you could get behind 100% without fault.

Jamie

 

There are kooks who follow and support Romney, Rudy, McCain, etc. , so if you are basing your decision on who to support based on who has the kooks behind them and who doesn't then you will wind up supporting none of the candidates.
Btw, you can read the bio of the person who wrote this blog @ http://www.brutallyhonest.org/about.html. For someone who admits to being spirtually confused I would question his ability on sorting out the kooks from the normal folks.

 

What's a DOR? Is that an acronym you made up?

 

The problem is you're not "demonizing" Ron Paul because of his actions, but because of the people that follow him. But on the other hand, President Bush has done a lot to cause people to "demonize" him.

Your response is Apples to Oranges.

Jamie

 

Paul's main problem is that he's not a Republican, but he's running in their primary.

He will never, ever be the Republican nominee for president.

 

I would say with the exception of Ron Paul that everyone else running in the Republican primaries resembles a Democrat.

 

I would go one step further: Vote your conscience, not "most likely to win" or "lesser of two evils." The only vote thrown away is the one you didn't cast.

 

There is only one issue that I will not vote for a candidate because of, the others I consider in totality. That issue is abortion. That would exclude Giluiani and Romney.

 

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate I would even consider at all. But with what the Republicans have done on their watch, I don't think I can vote for any of them. No the Democrats are not much better, but they more closely align with me on social issues and the war in Iraq, so it's gonna be one of them and whoever gets the nomination. I used to always vote for the Republican nominee, then voted Libertarian twice (both for the late Harry Brown), then for the Democrat twice.

While many issues are important, I am not a single-issue voter. As for the abortion issue, I am against late term abortion; but believe in keeping abortion legal in the early term, and in late term to protect the woman's life and well-being, hence I would have to consider a candidate's position on this issue as well, among others. Particularly, I want a person who will not wipe their feet on the Constitution and civil liberties the way the current administation has done.

 

I agree with your statement except the abortion issue. Your statement shows that you are thinking each and every election, and you are not tied to one party. The thing that puzzles me most on this board (and I voted twice for this person) is how any conservative, discerning Christian can continue to support the Bush Administration, or vote for a Bush like candidate in the future.

 

Bush, IMO, has played the conservative Christian voters for political gain. He is not one of them, but has said the right words to fool many. Time to see him and his entire crew for what they are.

 

And Paul closely reasembles a Libertarian, which is , of course, what he is.

He should run as one if he wants to be on the ballot. He has no chance as a Republican.