For many years now I’ve been a strong supporter of Ron Paul, and his unwavering integrity continues to attract me as I write this. Along with Kucinich I see him as one of the few pure, untainted politicians in existence at the top levels.

At some point, however, I was forced to stop supporting him because he’s somewhat insane. Here’s a short list of the views that remove him from the realm of serious consideration in my mind:

1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation Between Church and State. Dr. Paul is a devoutly religious man, and his denial of the fact that many of the founders wanted a religiously inert country is one of many examples of where his logic fails when confronted by dogma.


2. He is Against Federally Funded Education. He would have us abolish the Department of Education and go to a more local, non-standardized and Church-based education model. How he doesn’t realize this will create massive divides among us is a mystery to me. Also, can someone do some sort of comparison in the education systems of Finland and Nigeria? One has full, absolute government control and the other is significantly less obstructed by socialist influence.


3. He is Against National Health Care. Perhaps some see this as a positive, but I don’t. I think the need for it is obvious, and the fact that we don’t have it is embarrassing to us as a nation.


4. He’d Abolish the FDA and other Consumer Protection Groups. He believes that they are bureaucracies that should be abolished, and while I agree that there’s horrible waste and corruption of these groups, the notion that small groups of local activists or local government would be a good defense vs. corporate legal armies is pure fantasy. Where would smoking legislation be if it were not for government controls? Would it be ok to sell cigarettes to children, on TV, during cartoons? Of course it would. Money wins any legal argument unless there is concrete law to stop it.


5. He’s Fiercely Anti-abortion, and it Influences His Politics. People love to talk about how Dr. Paul doesn’t let his personal views influence his politics, but those taking that stance need to explain his support of the Sanctity of Life Act, which looked to make abortion illegal in all 50 states. Indeed, beliefs do guide action.


6. He Doesn’t Believe in Evolution. Not only does he not accept it, but he takes the extreme lowbrow stance of, “It’s a theory!” His own words of justification are the most damning, “I don’t believe the presidency should be decided on a scientific matter.” Goodness. The issue isn’t a specific scientific matter, it’s the rejection of obvious fact. To put a point on it, anyone who can watch this video, and still reject evolution is clearly being influenced by something harmful.

In short, Ron Paul is a deeply flawed candidate for any high-level position other than champion of integrity and consistency. We can do better than someone who thinks abortion is murder, think’s evolution is just a “theory”, thinks the “people” can fight billionaire corporations selling and marketing addictive poison to children, and and wants to leave our education in the hands of localized groups with varied standards and values.

He is a great man, but with that set of core beliefs he’s simply not fit to lead us. ::

I knew it. So many Ron Paul supporters told me that nobody who likes Ron Paul would ever support Obama because he’s so opposite from Ron Paul. My argument was that while his views ARE opposite in many ways, he’s still MOST similar in foreign policy, and that foreign policy is worth backing Obama for.

Well, Ron Paul hasn’t endorsed Obama, but he’s done something pretty similar. He’s come out and said that he’s the candidate least likely to get us pulled into Iran, and I totally agree with him.

The one who would most likely to keep us from expanding the war [into Iran] is probably Obama. — Ron Paul

Yes, Ron Paul said that. [ Video Here : @2:50]

Ron Paul supporters: please stop playing the purity game. Ron Paul isn’t going to win, and your vote counts. Please vote for the person most likely to keep help fix our foreign policy, which will allow us to focus on our problems back home. Even if Obama goes about it incorrectly, at least we’ll be on the right path.

With Clinton or McCain we’re going to war with Iran. We have to do whatever we can to stop that — even if it means for voting for a liberal. I would not be suprised at all if Ron Paul himself asked us to endorse Obama once it gets down to either him or McCain.

As sad as it is we have a simple case of “greater good” here. I ask you to reconsider your position of not supporting anyone but Paul. There truly is a difference between the non-ideal options in this race.:

Yeah, I know. You’d never vote for Obama because he’s basically a socialist. His views are “completely opposite” from Ron Paul’s, etc, etc. Right? Wrong.

Paul and Obama are actually very similar in one major respect — and it happens to be the most important respect given how warped our current reality is. They’re not fucking lunatics bent on destroying our country through asinine security policy.

Abroad McCain will stand up and tell the world how it’s going to be — perpetuating the Bush style of creating hate for America. And when terrorist attacks take place he’ll take our freedoms away at home to “protect” us. He’s also very likely to be at least as aggressive and war-mongering as Bush was. He’ll fucking ruin us.

That’s immediate danger. Serious danger. It’s not “socialist policy” danger. It’s not “philosophical” danger. It’s “staying the course in Iraq” danger. It’s “war with fucking Iran” danger. This guy is batshit crazy. Wake the fuck up.

We don’t have the luxury of basing our decision on a candidate’s view on federalism or social programs. Our problems are immediate, global and life-threatening. If we don’t support Obama either Clinton (see McCain) or McCain (McCain) will be the leader of our country, and our military, for the next four years.

Do you want a man who sings “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” at a political event in charge of our military? In charge of our “security” at home?

Here’s a crazy idea — consider putting some of your ideals aside and taking the action that WON’T get a complete lunatic put in office.:

Ron Paul just said, “gg”. I have so much respect for this man. I think he permanently reset the standard for pure and honest political dialogue in this country. I’m very sorry that our country was not ready for him.

But it’s time we ask the question again — are you, as Ron Paul supporters, going to write him in knowing it won’t help 1) him, 2) the republicans, or 3) the country — or are you going to retask and try and prevent McCain from getting into office?

Don’t get me wrong, I know that’s a messed up question. I know it’s wrong and horrible and pessimistic and all that stuff. Trust me…I know. But seriously…think about it.

And if you decide it’s best to write Paul in, do me a favor and send me an email, or leave a comment below, explaining why you think that’s the case. I’m honestly open to that perspective; I just need to be convinced.

But my current view is that failure to support Obama may very well equate to giving the country to McCain for four years — thus further solidifying our global decline — in the name of principle.

I ask you to reconsider and/or articulate why I should do the same.:

Not bitter or anything, just curious… Couldn’t we have purchased a superbowl ad or something? Didn’t we have a crapload of cash? Did we spend it all?

It just seems like we just faded away without seizing the opportunity we had.

Ron Paul just took 3% in Florida, and most states have been going similarly. I’m thinking what everyone else is thinking, but now I’m thinking it out loud.

When do we call gg and switch our energies to keeping Romney or McCain out of office? In other words, when do we give up and start supporting Obama?

Perhaps there are those among you that don’t like Obama, but here’s something to consider: you should vote for him for the same reason you’ll vote for Paul even though he doesn’t believe in evolution. He’s an honest man with common sense.

It’s sad, but that’s pretty much where the bar is at this point. McCain is all about the war in Iraq and wherever else he deems necessary. He mentioned future wars (plural). He’s seriously not much of an improvement over Bush — if any. Romney may be better, but who knows.

Anyway, consider this: Obama / Edwards. Graded on a curve that would be pretty stout. Then if we could just get Paul in as some sort of economic advisor we’ll have a decent shot of not dissolving as a union in the next 10 years.

So when is the right time to say that Paul has no realistic chance and start backing Obama instead? One one extreme we have the danger of abandoning the cause too early, and on the other we have the danger of hurting Obama’s chances by waiting too long.

Thoughts?

Pwned.

FOX: “Oh crap…he’s got a point there, and now I feel silly. Um…commercial break!”

FOX is not happy right now. They’re trying hard as hell to ignore Paul but he’s raping the candidates in the text poll they put up after the South Carolina republican debate.

The results so far?

Paul: 35%
Huckabee: 18%
Thompson: 18%

Too funny. They put out a poll and then ignore it if it doesn’t say what they want it to.

Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I think it’s a theory: The Theory of Evolution. And I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. — Ron Paul on evolution, December 1, 2007

[ Video Proof @ ~2:40 ]

As a Ron Paul supporter who has sent his campaign money, I’m thoroughly shocked. All this energy for a candidate who basically reduces to an openly extreme religious conservative who just happens to agree with us on a few key issues. So many positives, but so many negatives.

We should have known something was amiss when one of the best ways to support him was to say, “Don’t worry, he doesn’t believe in making policy based on any of the crazy stuff he believes…“

Is that what we’re reduced to? Hoping that our best candidate will erect a permanent barrier between government policy and what he believes the invisible, omnipotent creator of the universe prefers? (see abortion) That just seems so depressing.

I can’t believe this. I smelled something early on, but blinded by desperate optimism I (like so many others) tried to ignore it.

Oh well, he’s still better than everyone else, right? At what point does abject dismissal of science become a deal-breaker? Do we stick with him based on his overwhelming positives (foreign policy, personal freedom, economic policy, etc.), or should we get behind someone else? Kucinich? Obama?

Meh…

Here’s one of the commercials that Ron Paul supporters have paid to have run in Iowa before the caucus on January 2nd. It took nearly 100 cuts for Bo Thompson to make this commercial because he was shot in the facial area and has problems speaking. He did it for Ron Paul.