As I've said elsewhere, I'm basically a two-issue voter this election: abortion and the war. Ron Paul, in my humble opinion, seems to be the only candidate who unambiguously gets both right.
Will he win? Almost certainly not. But I suppose that I'll feel a little better next November if I gave my humble support to the candidate I thought was best while I had the chance.
I suggest anyone considering voting for Ron Paul make sure they first understand the nature of libertarianism and it's implications. Paul once ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket and still considers himself a "small l" libertarian. This is a movement that opposes things like publicly funded construction of roads, the US postal service, anti-trust laws, labor protection laws (All of them), environmental protection laws (all of them), the income tax (Which they equate to slavery), a legal minimum age of consent for sexual acts, government recognition of marriages, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a whole laundry list of important laws and programs, while favoring legalized prostitution. Ultimately they want a government so minimal that the end result would be either anarchy or a small group of large corporations and associations that essentially treat the rest of us as slaves.
I'm not saying Congressman Paul is in line with the libertarian position on all of these items (He probably has to be more moderate than that to have been elected to congress), but people should be aware that he has freely aligned himself with a party devoted to many of them in the past and still uses the term "libertarian" to describe himself. I could never and would never vote for a libertarian under any circumstances, personally.
I do agree with Bill on being against the war and being pro-life, and it's nice that the Congressman agrees with us on those two things also, but overall the Congressman becoming President would be a huge disaster for this nation, in my opinion.
In the end, I think it is going to come down to either Fred Thomson or Giuliani. No one else really stands a chance, especially the democratic side. The democrats have no one to offer, so Giuliani or Thomson will win by default.
The entire Republican field is opposed to guaranteed health care for children. The entire Republican field, minus Rep. Paul, continues to back staying in Iraq and saber rattling towards Iran. They could have a rough time of it in 2008, unless something surprising happens to change the political landscape in the interim.
Then again, even though I am a Democrat, I do not think the Democrat field is particularly strong in terms of electability. Senator Clinton has the experience and intelligence and statescraft skills to lead the nation, but so many find her personally unlikeable that she could have trouble in swing states (Particularly those in the south). Senator Obama is a good man, but he's shown in the debates that he needs a lot more seasoning, as his comments sometimes show a lack of understanding of the nuances of foreign policy and politics. Still, I would vote for any Democrat in the field over any of the Republicans in the field (Well, okay, I wouldn't vote for Mike Gravel.
). And I think the mood of the country is such and stances taken by the GOP are such that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards if nominated is going to be the odds-on favorite to win the Presidency with the electorate. They picked the right time to run, the country is ready for a change that they might not have made in years past if these were the candidates they had to pick from.
By the way, give the nature of this forum, it might be interesting to point out that Senator Joe Biden (Democratic candidate for President) sent his children to Catholic school and prays the rosary daily. For what it's worth.
