In defense of Ron Paul.

This entry is a side note, seeing as I need to defend myself a bit here. I'll try not to talk too much politics from here out, but I feel this had to be said.

In the past few weeks, I've taken a lot of heat from my liberal friends for not absolutely hating Ron Paul. I've never really been able to explain my love for him until the Florida primary.

I guess my initial curiosity for the now famous Libertarian was piqued by people like Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert, who adored the man. It was so strange to me that such famous liberals would be interested in a second tier Republican candidate, who was personable enough, but barely garnered enough attention and funding to make it into half of the primaries. He was obviously someone who got into the race to make noise and he did just that. Also, I think I liked that he was basically half Keebler Elf and half Vulcan:


+


As time went on and I started to learn more about his policies, I became disenchanted, realizing just how libertarian he really was. This man wants to murder the IRS and public education in favor of the private sector ruling everything. At first, it doesn't sound so bad. Who really wants to pay taxes? We all realize that we need to pay taxes, but when you get your paycheck with almost a third taken out, it stings. Once you really stop to think about what sizing down the government would mean, the situation gets a little scarier.

Anyways, as I grew more wary of Dr. Paul, I grew more interested in just studying him. He was what made the Republican debates enjoyable to watch. Watching the Democratic debates depressed me; it seemed ridiculous to watch the same debate over and over. Watching Hillary attack "the black man," only to hear him come back with some sound byte about "uniting America" or "change" while being overly polite to John Edwards, who had no chance to get in a word edgewise, was depressing. The Republicans were all clawing at one another, while basically saying the same things. They debated over technicalities in laws and votes, while skirting many of the greater issues. Ron Paul, on the other hand, was in a constant state of panic during the debates. Each of his answers came out in a tone that suggested, "WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? ARE YOU LISTENING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WHY DON'T YOU GET IT?" I can understand how this resonated with people disenchanted with the party.

As many of you have asked about, I am a moderate, as listed on facebook. I am a registered democrat, however I still may swing on certain issues, depending on the situation. This cycle, I was looking forward to voting for the most presidential candidate in the race, John Edwards, but he couldn't beat a few bad news cycles and the first viable woman and African American candidates. Why, then, would I defend Ron Paul, you might ask. I defend Ron Paul because I realize what he was trying to do.

There are candidates who get into the race to raise issues and keep everyone else honest. Ron Paul took this to a whole new level. I realize that he didn't do this intentionally, mostly because he must have known that he wouldn't have even gotten this far. In his responses during the debates, he may have seemed to be a little crazy, always using that distressed tone, but people heard what he was saying. The other candidates would laugh off his responses, but more often than not, he made them look plain ridiculous. In one of the earliest debates, he came straight out and proved Rudy Giuliani wrong, saying that he should "read a book from time to time." This is the reason I really love Ron Paul.

As you know, Giuliani decided to drop out after the Florida primary because he played his cards wrong, however I submit to you that it was a mismanagement of his campaign coupled with the success of Ron Paul's strategy that forced Rudy out.

Think back to two years ago. The only Republican candidate that was starting his campaign was Rudy, and it looked like he had a very good chance of being elected. Though it was not all positive, he had so much exposure and face recognition outside of New York between 9/11 and his appearances on Saturday Night Live and Seinfeld. He was building his name from the time he took office and he did a good job. I always thought of him as the Arnold of the east; a closeted moderate who could steal any office he wanted out from under our noses. If you think about how terrible Giuliani's policies would have been in the White House, it is really terrifying to think that there was a time when he was a viable candidate. Once the other candidates started announcing, Rudy's odds took a hit, but he was still the frontrunner. Even John McCain, one of the most beloved moderates, was trailing him at one point. I mean, how many people outside of New England have heard of Mitt Romney?

Back to Ron Paul; I personally don't agree with his domestic policy initiatives (I know, there weren't any besides "eliminating bureaucracy"), but his foreign policy was headed in the right direction (I'm not an isolationist, but I am for leaving people alone when we're obviously just going to ruin their lives) and I liked that. This, coupled with those calculated sound bytes, is what really pushed him forward in fundraising and visibility. He wasn't too good to speak to anyone and really seemed to make an effort to reach out to those demographics that Republicans thought were useless to them (young people, libertarians, and even Democrats). As time went on, Ron Paul started coming in ahead of many viable candidates in primaries and to this day has outlasted not only Rudy, but Fred Thompson ("the next Reagan?"). His being in the campaign not only kept the other candidates honest, but really made many people realize just how ridiculous Rudy Giuliani would have been as president.

In short, thank God for Ron Paul. If it weren't for him, we could have had a punchline for a president.