Why I Could Never Conscionably Vote For Ron Paul

The Ron Paul Phenomenon has been sweeping the country, taking campuses by storm, getting people interested in politics who otherwise would never be. Looking at his record in Congress, he has been known to take a very uncompromising position and turns down just about every item he sees as causing the government to grow. I respect that position, and find it quite amazing that people can hold onto their principles in such a way. Yet when I looked into the ramifications of giving this man the power of executive office, I found some issues that I must take issue with. From an article I found, I will now list what was said, and why I disagree with it. I did take out some parts (indicated by ellipses), not that I have to agree with them or that they are necessarily wrong, but I decided I'd highlight some things I simply cannot, in good conscience, accept as qualities of someone I would vote for as President of the United States. Quote: Philadelphia Daily News I'm flirting with Ron and hoping Rudy doesn't find out. Call me a political hussy. ... Last week we chatted for less than 15 minutes, but in that brief encounter, Ron Paul pulled no punches and weighed in on no less than 10 issues I raised: The economy, Iraq, Pakistan, foreign relations, global warming, abortion, Terri Schiavo, drugs, immigration - even hookers. ... His simple litmus test doesn't entirely square with the game plan I have advanced for how the Republicans can maintain control of the White House: moderate on social issues, tough on terrorism, reasonable in dealing with differing viewpoints. I have long believed that's how we win the hearts of suburbanites. And Rudy is that embodiment. ... Although here I kind of disagree with the stance that Rudy represents all of the above in a reliable way, it is still the best way to get people on our side- to defend the America we once stood for, and protect the people of our nation from fundamentalists who would either see us all dead or converted. Quote: ... Foreign intervention: Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who could be considered remotely "anti-war." He thinks we should resort to the battlefield only when America has been attacked or faces imminent danger. I like it in theory, I'm just having a hard time deciding what we'll say to friends like England and Israel should they need our help. "I think they should take care of themselves," he told me. So... we're not in imminent danger now? There is an entire section of the middle east that has already declared a fatwa on all Americans- if you're an American, you can be shot on sight and killed without prejudice. The USS Coal and all terrorist attacks before 9/11 were a warning. Had we not responded to 9/11, they would have escalated further and further. Turning our backs on this fact isn't going to help ANYTHING. Isolationism means we turn our backs and paint a huge target on our backsides, as well as on our allies. We may as well not have ANY allies if we pursue this kind of policy, and this is the kind of world now where we can't do that. We need Israel, as the only democracy in the area, to continue to support us and make sure Syria doesn't point nukes at us. If you doubt their capability to do so, check this and this out- it seems that the US and Israeli forces seem to work well at keeping bombs from dropping. And I don't think going it alone without England is a very smart idea either- while I am certainly no fan of their big brother-style government, they too are dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and need any friend they can get. Quote: ... Marijuana and prostitution: He thinks we should let adults decide what they put into their bodies, and I agree with him. As long as you're not out on the road or operating machinery, it's your business what you smoke. Same goes for prostitution. Take it off the blacklist. Dr. Paul has a very interesting position here ... does he plan on regulating it at all? Because one of the biggest arguments I've ever heard for legalizing prostitution or marijuana is that then we get to enforce them, make them safer, and increase the amount of taxes we can pull in. Yet I somehow doubt as a libertarian, Ron would let either be enforced whatsoever. So the rampant problems with STDs, AIDS, corrupted drugs that kill people, underage prostitutes, underage smoking and any other conceivable problem with the above currently prosecuted items are ONLY GOING TO INCREASE. Unless he wants to sell out and regulate it of course. Quote: ... Illegal immigration: Amnesty doesn't sit well with either of us. Paul wants to eliminate all the subsidies and mandates that require us to provide free education and medication to illegal immigrants. I'd like a fence, too. He disagrees. So how in the world does he plan on dealing with the people coming across? If we have no wall, if we don't enforce it whatsoever, what in the world are we going to do with the hundreds of thousands who are just going to come traipsing across? Of course they won't have their wonderful benefits, but they'll have a wonderful market for drugs now that drugs are legalized... Great plan for pushing yet more drugs onto kids. Quote: ...NO WONDER the guy recently raised $4.2 million - all via online donations - in a single day. .. The fact that he can mobilize the radical left and the spam community (the people that put messages saying ENLARGE YOUR MALE PARTS! into my little sister's email box she uses to email her grandmother) only further proves that this is not a person we want representing the Republican party. I do think it would be good to have a third party here because you can never tell me that this man is a Republican. If you do so, you're only fooling yourself.