I freely admit that I was not a fan of Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential campaign partly because I supported Mike Huckabee, and partly because I found Ron Paul supporters to be particularly annoying with their comments here on the blog.
I also freely admit that I did not really explore more about Ron Paul than what I heard in the news or observed in debates.
There are fellow bloggers (some were Huckabee supporters) who refer to Congressman Paul as an idiot. Others are less harsh and express concern about his libertarian and isolationist view points.
As my search for a 2012 Presidential Candidate continues, this evening I decided to start with Ron Paul and dropped by his campaign website. With intelligence and thoughtfulness can you give me your viewpoints on Ron Paul and why you will or will not support him (telling me he’s an idiot or other such pointless drivel will get your comment deleted). I want to give Dr. Paul a more thorough and thoughtful vetting than I did in 2008.
- Ron Paul appears to be in agreement with me on:
- Sanctity of human life – born and unborn
- Homeschooling
- Marriage
- Defense
- Rights of parents
- Immigration
- Health Care
- Energy Independence
So what are your thoughts? Can you help me with this vetting of Congressman Ron Paul?
OneMom
Incoming search terms:
- why not ron paul
- why not ron paul?
- strengthen beavers
- why not to vote for ron paul
- why we should not vote for ron paul
- Why was ron paul not in huckabee debate
- Why was Ron Paul not at Huckabees debate
- why not to trust ron paul
- why not ruon paul
- i will stand against unconstitutional federal power grabs marriage ron paul
- why is ron paul not in huckabee debate
- why is ron paul not in huckabee
- why did ron paul not participate in huckabee debate
- Why did Ron paul decline Huckabee
- why did candidate Ron Paul did not make it to the election 2011
- presidential debate Huckabe why not Ron Paul
- moms for Ron Paul
- why will people not back ron paul
Peace, Prosperity and Freedom..how can you be against that??
And he is pro-life, which includes being anti-war. As an Austrian-school proponant of economics, he has a grasp of financial and economic policy unlike any of his Keynesian counterparts (be it Republican or Democrat). All other candidates represent either the welfare or the warfare state. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. He is not an isolationist, but a non-interventionist. Like him or dislike him, if you research his stances and his voting record you will come to the conclustion that he stands by his beliefs and doesn’t pander to political groups to get support. Your best sources of information on him (without the interruption of his sometimes overzealous supporters) are to read his book – Liberty Defined and The Revolution: A Manifesto.
Hope that helps!
Peace,
Aaron
Hi Aaron – thank you for a thoughtful and non-combative response. I will consider all you have said.
Honesty and Consistency-
I think that says it all. Vet the other candidates and look at what they said they would do and what they did. Look to see if they have flip flopped on the issues or are they stand up people.
Rep. Paul has a track record of 30 years…..hope that helps.
Marc
One thing that many conservatives hold against him is his unwillingness to back constitutional amendments. For example, he opposes any federal definition of marriage, saying the states have the right to decide. He also supports states rights to decide on abortion. Another “X” for most conseravatives is the fact that there are some things Ron Paul thinks should be legal that most conservatives don’t, like prostitution. He also voted for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, but did say that problematic homosexual behavior should be given disciplinary action. I think he also favors medical marijuana.
Ron Paul does have many good points as well. He wants to get us out of the UN, go back to the gold standard, secure our borders, is for completely reforming the tax system with no income tax, would shrink the government to its Constitutional confines, and he is very pro-gun.
Hi Frances – regarding marriage, he says “I will stand against unconstitutional federal power grabs and will fight to protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize same-sex marriage against the will of its people”. I am all for returning more power back to each state and reducing the size of the federal government. The prostitution and drug issues are a difficulty … it appears to be not so much that he supports prostitution, but that he thinks that the voters in each state should make that decision. These are the issues that are very libertarian and things I must consider. Thanks for bringing these issues to the discussion.
At the very least, I trust Ron Paul. He has been saying the same things for a very long time. I will take that over a flip-flopper who happens to have flopped my way this time. I would also take that over someone who spouts a bunch of feel good mumbo jumbo and leaves everyone wondering if he stands for anything. He says the same thing when it is popular and when it is not. I can respect that.
That’s true Frances …. Ron Paul is certainly consistent and never says something just to make people feel better. As with children, the American people (and leaders in Washington DC) need to hear “no” more often.
He believes we have the right to do what we wish with our own bodies as long as we are willing to take the responsibility for such actions. Also, the drugs usually mentioned, marijuana and cocaine, where both legal until the 20th Century. Then also the ludicrous decision to outlaw the growth of hemp, as he puts it, it would take a joint the size of a telephone pole to get high on hemp although it has all sorts of advantageous applications. The fact of the matter the Federals do not have the Constitutional authority to proscribe what we can take or what we can eat, whether it’s raw milk, supplements, alternative treatments for disease, or what drugs we take. The biggest problem is not illegal drugs, it’s the over prescription of legal drugs encouraged by Big Pharma reps. The goal of modern medicine is not to cure anyone but to make Big Pharma obscenely rich. I have had friends who worked in the industry and the amount of money Big Pharma throws around is obscene.
I, too, wasn’t a fan of Ron Paul the first time around for the same reasons. I haven’t started my search for 2012, but Ron Paul is the top of my list when I start my search. Where my political opinions have evolved, they have evolved closer to Paul’s positions.
Thanks Ronnica … it is good to hear from you and find that you are thinking much the way I am as I try to find my candidate.
I was a big fan of Huckabee during the 2008 primaries, even started a blog called dutch4huckabee. I liked his Christmas video, that was actually the first time I saw him. It made me happy and immediately enthousiast for this guy. All the fuss by both liberal media and Republican ennemies about that video was clearly baseless and dishonest. Mike Huckabee was clearly critical of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, even in his reaction to Ron Paul in an early debate. His response to Ron Paul was very strong, but still critical of Bush Iraq invasion “we broke it”. I also was impressed with his views on immigrants and radicalisation in Europe in his speech “paths and priorities in the war on terror” and his grasp of the importance of Martin Luther King’s thinking for Republican politics. The hostile attack on Mike Huckabee by Peter Wehner and Condoleeza Rice on his foreign policy positions and (Wehner) the way Huckabee talked about his faith in politics were for me strong reasons to get even more convinced that this was the right candidate. Huckabee was clearly aiming to make people think how faith and politics relate. He was not pandering to some group, he was an authentic Republican who was aware of history, context and what matters most.
By following his campaign I got even more convinced that Republican partyleadership just wanted to use the evangelical or social conservative vote as a way to gain power. That’s not a game social conservatives should want to participate in. Social conservatives should not accept to be “put in a box” as Huckabee recently reminded his supporters at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans.
As I said, I was critical of Bush foreign policy in 2008, as was Huckabee, and on that important topic I now naturally gravitate strongly in the direction of Ron Paul who “rejects the leftist, utopian doctrines of nation building and preemptive war”.
Based on the 2008 experience I am very suspicious partyleadership will attempt to co-opt the orthodox christian vote again this year. The natural candidate that doesn’t pander and won’t be co-opted by the Republican establishment that immediately comes to mind is Ron Paul. The more the establishment calls Ron Paul “crazy” the more people will start taking a serious look at what he actually says. It reminds me of the vicious attacks on Huckabee as “the pastor” in 2008. Ron Paul delivered a great speech in New Orleans last week. I think Ron Paul is doing the Republican party a favor by running.
Hello Vincent – I agree with you that the GOP only panders to evangelicals and social conservatives when they need our vote. I took a lot of heat for refusing to vote for John McCain. The GOP expects us to “step in line and do what we’re told”, but I cannot violate my convictions for the sake of the GOP. Thank you for the examples of similarities between Gov. Huckabee and Ron Paul. I see I am not the only person looking more seriously at Dr. Paul.
Best advice go to yo^tube saying the same thing he was saying in 1982. Thats how i found him last year. watch every video you can theres ALOT. And tell your friends also His voting record
In a post Huckabee age there are many candidates to look at. But to answer your question directly. I have a problem with a prospective leader that says drugs should be legalized. Its consistent with his liberterianism that says the govt. should stay out of everything. But the effect of the drug culture on our socit=ety cannot be overstated. Legalizing them will not make it better. Big governement is certainly a bad thing. But so is no government anarchy. Another is gay marriage. The Paul position that what people do privately shouldn’t matter again misses the reality that when a government condones has a cost to the society. I don’t want govt running my life but I would like it to reinforce basic judeo-Christian values. I think Michele Bachman seems more in line with a balanced approach.
Ron Paul believes drug legalization should be a state decision and not a federal one. There is an option of going the decriminalization path instead of legalization too. Portugal decriminalized all drugs 10 years ago and they have had a steady decline in drug usage since that time. The difference mainly with legalization vs decriminalization is that decriminalized it cannot be advertised like cigarettes and alcohol are. It is not technically legal but, people will not be penalized for using them. Yet, if they legalize it in any states they can then heavily tax it and likely make a lot of income. For me personally, I believe decriminalization makes more sense in actually fighting drug usage and still cutting back on massive amounts of money spent by DEA and imprisonment of most drug offenders. I believe legalization on the other hand really opens the door for corporate advertisement for drugs, at the same time offering a fairly large tax revenue…
Really, though that is besides the point since Ron Paul believes it should be legalized in the sense that it should be the States decision. So, some states it could be illegal, others legal, and perhaps others simply decriminalized. I do support him on this and think it is the right approach. We the citizens have far more control over state and local politics than the federal. At least we can vote and participate directly on many issues at the state and local level. Federally, we have to hope the person we elected to represent us was “genuine” and will do as they claimed when they are in office. Again, this is a strong area for Ron Paul. He is a true Statesman.
Deva – thanks for the explanation on the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.
It bothers me when the media (or others) twist something into a sound-bite that most people cannot be convinced is not true once it’s out there. I am pretty sure that Dr. Ron Paul would tell me “NO” if I asked him if I should starting shooting heroin. Unfortunately, “Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin” makes a better sound-bite than “Ron Paul believes in the constitution and wants rights returned to the states”.
The older I get, the more libertarian I get.
I’ve had the privilege of voting for him twice. I believe he has integrity. And he defends the Constitution.
If I decided today – Ron Paul is probably my candidate – with Herman Cain a close 2nd. Hoping for Marco Rubio.
Hi Vince – I believe that Sarah Palin would be a stronger candidate now if she had not been prematurely thrust onto the national stage by John McCain. If Marco Rubio gets in for 2012, I am afraid the same may happen to him.
I had forgotten that you have voted for Ron Paul in congressional races. Integrity is a rare quality in our government.
I cant seem to answer why not. Not sure about his foreign policies though…but he is still my leading candidate for 12
Hi Abbey – so far no one has really given a “why not” for this question. I’ve decided I’m going to do a similar post for the other candidates as we go along.
One thing is certain, Ron Paul always sticks to his guns. I can’t say that I have ever seen a time when he quibbles or flip-flops about a position he has taken on any particular issue. I think my biggest problem with him has to do with his delivery. His voice and his attitude seem to grate on my nerves. Is that a legitimate reason to be against him? Probably not, but it will take me some doing to get around it.
I understand that Larry … I’m not making any decision right now, but I also know that I really didn’t give Congressman Paul any consideration in 2008 mostly because Huckabee was (and always will be) my candidate. But, since we don’t have Gov. Huckabee this time, I have to consider what our options are.
Pingback: Ron Paul For President In 2012? | Political Realities
Did you see (or read) Ron Paul’s comment that bankruptcy might be a part of the solution to our national debt problem?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/168657-rep-ron-paul-bankruptcy-could-be-cure-for-us-debt
Hi Frances … on a basic common sense level, that makes sense. The economic and market ramifications … I’m not sure what that might mean. I do give him credit for consistency!
Paul’s latest book Liberty Defined convinced me. It gave me a much better explanation of his positions than FOX has done. I suggest reading it.
Hi Edward … I am assuming the book convinced you to support Ron Paul?
Yes, the book convinced me of Paul’s ideas/philosophy and to support him.
Thanks Edward, just checking to see if the book convinced you positively or negatively. I need to read it.
Last election was the first that I’ve taken part in, and I voted for Ron. I’ve watched previous years elections, watched some of the debates, could have even voted but didn’t. I like that he’s different, provides straight answers on any issues he’s asked and is genuinely honest. He doesn’t pander and even admits most of what he’d like to do would have to be done in congress. I personally tell anyone that’s willing to listen about his positions, because it’s more about his message than the man, he just happens to be one of the few promoting these ideas.
Hopefully you’ll consider him in 2012, he’s got my vote.
Thanks Nick for your thoughtful answer. I am considering Ron Paul … something that I never thought I’d do. I am finding it difficult to even listen to the rest of the candidates because they seem to never answer any question posed to them. They are just a mess of “sound-bites” and “mantras” that they try to hypnotize the people with. Ron Paul isn’t’ like that.
As a conservative Ron Paul supporter from a Methodist/GOP family, I’d like to echo some of the sentiments expressed here & thank you for considering Paul for president.
No candidate is ever perfect. Ron Paul probably confuses some people at first glance. Ron Paul is a devout Christian who reads Bastiat along w/ the Bible, very anti-abortion & socially conservative but pro-States’ rights. One problem is that politicians have been abusing power & speaking in pragmatic-only voices for so long that it’s hard for the public to understand someone principled. Today, a politician is expected to use ANY means necessary, lawful or not, to push his/her personal agenda, and voters are *confused* and often fearful that a statesman should operate by principle. For instance, Gov. Huckabee’s stances on voting registration are based in the Founding Fathers’ belief that voters should be at least somewhat educated & astute. Yet, Huck was unfairly accused of being a racist because people simply assumed an agenda, not a principle, was at stake.
I’d like to address a few of the above concerns one by one. Beginning with electability. The fact is, Ron Paul has probably the *best* chance of beating Obama. That isn’t my opinion but it’s what recent polls tell us. Paul beat Obama in a head-to-head Rasmussen poll late last year. A CNN poll this May showed Ron Paul polling the best against Obama compared to *any* other GOP candidate. Probably b/c Ron scares the hell out of the liberals at CNN, they ran the same poll in June without including him! Which is why many aren’t aware of the results.
The media love to *call* Paul unelectable but in truth he enjoys surprisingly widespread appeal. Many in Paul’s fanbase are disgruntled independents who voted for Obama based on the lies he told in his campaign. Liberals may disagree w/ Ron vehemently, but they tend to *respect* him greatly. He is one politician who tells the truth and will do what he promises. Obama did not, and does not.
As a political opinion, not wishful thinking, I think Paul will have a hard time in the GOP primary if true conservatives don’t realize fast enough that he is our greatest statesman. However, if he makes it to the general he can demolish Obama. Barack is praying a moderate/greasy type like Romney runs whom he can campaign negatively against. But Ron’s biggest issues are all things Obama clearly lied about — Federal overreach, the budget, financial reform, the wars in the Middle East. Paul would level him in debates.
Ron’s foreign policy is *called* isolationist or blame-America by his opponents. But conservative voters should not let the (liberal) opponents of a candidate *define* the candidate’s views for them. If I thought Ron Paul blamed America for Islamic terrorists, I wouldn’t support him. Ron does think that our mistakes have made things worse, as Ronald Reagan said they did. Looking at a Paul presidency from a practical/military point of view, Reagan’s policy would be the closest historical example. We would not be involved in as many wars. BUT, when we *are* involved, the shackles would be taken off our military. It is a joke that the most powerful military in history can’t defeat small warbands of Muslim extremists carrying pipe bombs & porno tapes. NATO and the UN deserve much of the blame for shackling us with political demands for limited police-action war. As Ron Paul has said, the proper way for America to fight is “If we feel strongly, Congress should vote to declare war, and then we all get up together, and go fight, and win it, and get outta there!” It is no coincidence that in 2008, Ron Paul received more donation $ from active & veteran military personnel than all other candidates combined.
Ron Paul would also stand up strongly to the UN and NATO conspiring with Democrats to take our troops to war for their purposes without the consent of our Representatives, as Reagan would have. Lastly, Ron will not acquiesce to various Arab dictators’ cries for “foreign aid” with which to build weapons & infrastructure. Israel’s best friend is an American president who will stop funding the aims of military dictators that oppose it.
Finally, those who have pointed out that Paul does NOT favor drug legalization are absolutely correct. He simply favors states & localities making those decisions, as he favors education & religious rights being decided by citizens as well. The federal govt. has failed to keep drugs & sex out of the hands of children. Perhaps Americans can do a better job through our local governments, especially if churches are allowed more influence over our lives and more freedom to work with teenagers on a local basis.
Again, anti-Ron Paul folks are trying to take advantage of the ignorance of voters, as neo-liberals & secularists have done in so many recent elections. Being against the Federal government’s bankrupt spending & overreaching policy is not to be “in favor of” so many things that we all agree as conservatives are problems. Paul simply offers stronger, wiser solutions that put Americans in charge of ourselves in a responsible way.
Thanks for reading and again for considering Ron Paul!
Thanks Kurt for the details and clarifications. While I haven’t made up my mind yet, I am weary of those saying that Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin, when in reality he just wants the states to be given their constitutional rights back to make their own decisions. I am considering Ron Paul, and will announce my decision soon.
OneMom, thank you for your article. I am and have been a Ron Paul supporter since before 2008. I wanted to address the “rudeness” of Paul supporters in 2008.
I know what is being referred to. I also have some good ideas why it happened.
In the 2008 election Ron Paul was not invited to all of the debates (he was excluded). The same thing happened with Gov. Gary Johnson in this years NH Republican Debate. Ron Paul took 2nd in the Nevada primary yet all of the major news networks showed 1st, 3rd, and 4th and did not mention his name. He was being censored and marginalized largely by the media. To those of us that really believed in the message he had we more or less went to war against media censorship over our rights as people to see all of our candidates. That meant that we had to be vocal, make signs, and get out there to do what we could. Our candidate was being black balled. We felt he deserved equal opportunity to be seen by the citizens of the United States. As with any such ACTION by groups of people it could get out of hand. I did not witness anything like that personally but, I did see articles and youtube videos where I thought some of my fellow Ron Paul supporters got a bit out of hand.
Today a lot of activity still happens with Ron Paul supporters and they are pretty active in fighting disinformation such as statements like you indicated that he wants to legalize “heroin” when in fact he wants that to be left up to the states. Statements that indicate he is an isolationist when in fact that is what his opposition has kept saying so, it is stuck in many people’s minds. He has addressed that statement himself and stated he is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He believes is friendship and trade. He does not believe in Military Intervention and Entangling Alliances (which is also an aspect the constitution is against). There are SO many things that are used against Ron Paul by people that are not accurate and are perpetuated by the media that the only way many of us know to counter it is to be very vocal in supporting and countering such things.
There are things I do not agree with Ron Paul 100% on. Quite a few actually. I do however, see him as very ethical, and with an impeccable morality and integrity. I agree with him on more things than I disagree. I do not FEAR what may come of him getting into office. I know he truly cares and I suspect the fact he has served 12 times for his district shows that the people he represents think he is doing the job he promised them he would.
I am NOT trying to sell you on Ron Paul. I think you are taking the approach we should all take. We should do our own research and make an INFORMED decision for who best represents us. I still am keeping my eye on other candidates as well. If the media marginalizes people then I tend to pay more attention to them. So, with that said I am keeping an eye on Gary Johnson as well since that is who they are marginalizing this time around.
I believe if we can counter disinformation that Ron Paul would do well against Obama. I believe he can win. As to debates. In a true debate he would destroy Obama. The problem is we do not really have true debates on mainstream media anymore. We have these engineered “multi-person interviews” where the interviewees are asked different questions, not given the chance to answer the same questions presented to others, and given no chance for rebuttal. In 2008, they would often ask Ron Paul questions that were clearly designed to make him seem like a nut. I personally, think they did the opposite. When they ask him questions about the things he has studied (for decades) so thoroughly, and knows so well he cannot really be made out as a fool. The only way they achieve that is by taking sound-bites from something he said and presenting them out of context. As they are doing with the “heroin” bit.
Anyway, thank you.
Hi Deva – Huckabee supporters felt much the same way in 2008, the media conveniently would refer to him as “Baptist Minister” Mike Huckabee, instead of “Governor Huckabee”. Since too many voters do what the mainstream media tells them to do, they pigeon-holed the Governor. I appreciate the time you took to respond and the information. I am still considering Ron Paul and will let everyone know here at OneMom when I make a decision.
A documentary was done (For Liberty) on Ron Paul by his grassroots supporters. It will give you an idea of his incredible support and how he was marginalized by the media and the GOP.
Here is a clip from the documentary:
Thanks Deborah, I’ll view that later today (the computer I’m on right now is too slow for youtube).
Hi, OneMom. As someone who believes that protecting human life from conception until natural death is the most important issue of all, and that supporting Israel is a very important issue as well, I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the best candidate on both these points.
By working to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade and return the power to legislate about abortion to the states, Ron Paul’s proposed approach will allow many states with pro-life majorities to restrict or ban abortion right away. His legislation to remove the power to regulate abortion from the Federal government and return it to the states could pass right away with simple majorities in Congress, not the more burdensome 2/3 majority requirement for a Constitutional amendment. While not a final solution to the tragedy of mass abortion, such an approach will allow us to start saving hundreds of thousands of lives right away, and will provide concrete examples that, in the modern age, women’s safety and reproductive health can be protected and unwanted children can be adopted and cared for without the need to resort to abortion. This will do massive amounts of good and will save potentially millions of lives that might be lost waiting for the ‘all or nothing’ approach pursued by many pro-life organizations to succeed; it is a sad truth that the Human Life Amendment has been perpetually 10 years off for 30 years now. A Constitutional amendment defining human life would continue to be fought for, and Ron Paul supports us in that fight, but in the meantime by turning to federalism, pro-lifers under a Paul administration could accomplish more to protect the unborn in 3 months than in all the past 30 years.
And as to Israel, Ron Paul is easily the most truly pro-Israel GOP candidate. By seeking to end all foreign aid, Ron Paul would give a massive advantage to Israel as she seeks to defend herself. This is because the US currently gives much more foreign aid to Israel’s enemies, the hostile Muslim states which surround her, than we do to Israel itself. Thus, the uniform halting of all aid will strengthen Israel’s position and security in the region, and also represent a PR victory for Israel, in that it will be seen to merely be fighting to protect itself, and not for the benefit of US policies or domestic political movements. In addition, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who would truly respect and protect Israeli sovereignty. All the other candidates think the US should be able to tell Israel how and when they can defend themselves, since we give them aid. Ron Paul would never try to manipulate Israel to act against its own interests and the will of its citizens. That’s something no other candidate will ever be able to state, since many of them view Israel as a tool of US foreign policy.
In short, if you want to prevent as many abortions as possible as quickly as possible, and if you want Israel to be safe, free, and independent, Ron Paul isn’t just the best choice – he’s the only choice! At least, that’s my view.
I can attest first hand to the frustration we felt in 2008 as we tried to support Mike Huckabee. The media campaign against him was unlike anything I had ever witnessed and we had a very difficult time in countering it’s affects.
I have been following Ron Paul for over 15 years now, and am amazed that America does not yet get that this man is the only answer to the current problem. If you do not elect this guy, please send him up to Canada. We love him up here and we would like to clone him and keep a few for ourselves.
It is a guy like Ron Paul that sometimes makes mer wish I was living in the U.S., but as long as the 5 monkeys (google the 5 monkey theory) have not been changed in Washington, I’ll stay up here, where it is safer.
Good Luck in choosing a lead that will actually turn things around.
Ron Paul!!!
The only candidate loved more outside of the U.S. than inside of it.
Pingback: Where is My Candidate? | OneMom
Pingback: OneMom Endorses Ron Paul | OneMom
I’m not sure I trust a man who SAYS he’s against earmarks, then puts in MILLIONS of dollars worth of earmarks for his district… but thinks he absolves himself by voting against the bills (that he full well knows will pass) so he is a SNEAK…his voting ‘record’ is a LIE…
I also hear in his debate performances answers that are anti-Jewish state and PRO Iran and other Muslim countries. He thinks WE are to blame for 9-11… for these reasons (and his annoying followers) I do not want Ron Paul as the leader of this country… I do not trust him to keep me and my grand children safe from the hoards of people that hate us because we are Americans.
Elaine Magliacane recently posted..Nov15Art
I couldn’t disagree with you more, Elaine. Ron Paul is not against Israel and he is certainly not pro-Iran. He just wants us to go about our foreign policy a bit differently. With the mistakes and gaffes we have seen in the past, there is no sin in wanting to do that.
That also applies to the accusation that he blames us for what happened on 9/11. He does not, but he does think our actions overseas were part of the reason the attacks took place. Can you honestly disagree with that?
What would you have Ron Paul do to keep you and your children safe from those who would do us harm? Do you think starting a war with Iran is the answer?
One last thing, about earmarks. You need to examine what Ron Paul has said about them. You are completely missing the point of the position he has taken.
And by the way, not all of his supporters are as you accuse them of being. We are just people who want a change and see Ron Paul as the best man to implement that change.
LD Jackson recently posted..Ron Paul Moves Into Second in Iowa and New Hampshire
Thank you Larry for answering this. Elaine, you are reciting things that are talking points for those against Ron Paul and against rational government and against restoring our nation. Some of Ron Paul’s words may seem harsh, but the reason for that is that the truth is often hard for us to hear … but the truth is good for us, in fact it will set us free.