Friday, May 4, 2007

Ron Paul Won't Get My Vote for President

Off the top of my head, I can't think of another elected official on the national level that has done more to consistently promote liberty in the modern era than has Dr. Ron Paul. In the face of the acerbic environment of DC, he has resisted the temptation to sway with the polls and has stood fast on principle. It is no wonder that the LP dubbed him as their candidate for President in 1988.

Of course, anyone who follows politics knows that third party candidates rarely have much success on any level, which is why Dr. Paul runs as a Republican. I am constantly amazed that he manages to get re-elected in TX-14 simply by putting an (R) at the end of his name rather than an (L), but without changing his message. He certainly doesn't do it with help from the RNC. To them, he is nothing more than a placeholder for the Republican Party. They do not actively support him, though they should. A good look at his views could do a lot to remind Republicans of many of the things they supposedly stand for.

By this point, after such a glowing description of Dr. Paul, you may be wondering why he won't be getting my vote for President. Simple. Republicans are idiots and he will be lucky to garner a few percentage points of the vote during the primaries. Therefore, he will not actually be running for the Presidency, but only the Republican nomination for President. Because of that, he won't be getting my vote for President.

He will get my vote for the Republican nomination though, and he should get yours as well. The Republicans have taken advantage of the fact that many liberty minded people feel like they are between a rock and a hard place come election time. They don't want to vote for whatever unappealing character happens to get the Rep. nomination, but they also find themselves afraid to vote for a third party candidate for fear of the unappealing character on the Dem side will win.

Believe me, that is a nauseating feeling indeed. I have voted for the LP candidate during the last 2 Presidential elections (since I started considering myself a libertarian), but I can say that the thought of Gore or Kerry being President scared the hell out of me. The thought of another Republican like Bush scares me as well, so I will undoubtedly vote for whomever garners the LP nomination once again. And once again, he will have no chance of actually winning.


Anonymous said...

I won't likely be voting at all, since I am a conscientious objector. But in any case, Paul wouldn't get my vote. His argments against the war are completely irrational. It's not that he's against the war - I would disagree but that alone wouldn't rule him out in my mind - it's the reasons he cites, "American Imperialismt", and all that crap.

Unfortunately, though his voting record is expemplary, he's fallen prey to the socialist sleeper cells that, along with their own internal contradictions, have hopelessly corrupted the LP in the last few years.

There is not one current candidate I would even consider casting a vote for, and I will not cast a lesser of x evils vote. Fred Thompson looks so far like the only player I could even consider a vote for, largely based on his staunch defense of federalism.

In one case, on the issue of tort reform, he was the 1 in a 99-1 vote, going against Republican principles explicitly on federalist principles. He wrote later that while he favored the purpose of the law, it was something the federal goverment had no business being involved in.

Unfortunately, since the only thing I could vote for would be a candidate that will implement the principle of protecting me from the greatest existing threat to my freedom and safety, Thompson, no matter how much he might want to, will be unable to do that - it's not possible to do anymore. So most likely I still won't be voting.


Liberty Dog said...

My views of the war are at severe odds with Paul as well, but I wouldn't let that be the issue that would prevent me from voting for him. I learned long ago that there is virtually no chance that will ever have the opportunity to vote for a candidate with which I am in 100% agreement on issues, unless I ever happen to run for office myself.

I certainly understand your thinking in this regard though.

As for Thompson, should he enter, my guess is that he would win the nomination and I would likely vote for him in the general election for the reason that you mention above, though I am sure that I take issue with some of his stances as well.

Anonymous said...

Well, like I said, it's not the opposition itself, but the (il)logic of his reasoning. At worst, he's nuts, at best, he's blindly following a seriously misguided and possibly deliberately undermined LP party line.

Last time around, I met Badnarik and asked him some question about the war. His answer was basically the same line that Paul is spouting now, and was wildly applauded. It was the last LP meeting I attended.

Liberty Dog said...

Yeah...that is why I am not currently a member of the LP and why I am a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, which has been quite successful at bringing about a lot of important changes in the way the LP works.

There is still plenty to be done though.