Why We Should Cast Our Votes For Ron Paul

Guest Submission by Morgan Rigg

Rick Santorum is out of the race, Newt Gingrich is no longer focused on winning, and Mitt Romney is being touted as the presumptive nominee while considering potential running mates.  For those of us who’ll be voting in upcoming primaries and caucuses (including here in my own state of Indiana), those of us who continue to have qualms about the former Massachusetts Governor, the question that could be asked is this: Doesn’t look good, does it?  However, as we all know, there is another candidate, one who is in the race to win, one who offers a different vision of our country than President Barack Obama, one who offers real hope and real change, one who offers the fundamental restoration of our country: Ron Paul.  Horrified, aren’t you?  Nevertheless, I am serious, and I’ll try to explain why.

The most common statement about the Texas Congressman given by people goes something like this: “I love where he stands on economic issues, but can’t stand him on foreign policy.”  Sarah herself has said something along those lines on multiple occasions, and unquestionably, his foreign policy stances have been and continue to be his biggest obstacles as a candidate.  He supports getting rid of foreign aid to other countries, including Israel, but he has also explained why this is a good idea, especially for Israel, believing this would make the Israelis independent (instead of being dependent on us).  It is also clear he supports Israel’s right to exist as a country, and would support letting the Israelis determine what’s best for them in dealing with their neighbors, including the Palestinians.

He is well known for his non-interventionist stances, his support for bringing the troops home from Afghanistan and cease from engaging in nation-building, for closing down military bases overseas and focusing on our national defense.  Although regarded as a weak would-be Commander-in-Chief for his stances, he has supported targeting terrorist leaders including Osama bin Laden, and supports going into war as long as it’s done according to the Constitution and there is a clear plan for a quick victory.  His focus on national defense would include a focus on border security, making sure terrorists are unable to come into the country.  When it comes to cutting the military/defense budget, the focus is on eliminating wasteful spending, like in any other section of the overall federal budget.

He supports using free trade with Iran instead of applying sanctions against them, and this is one area I disagree with him on.  The idea an authoritarian regime like the mullahs in Iran will lose their hold on power over there because of the benefits of free trade is something I don’t see as plausible.  It brings me to mind of Communist China, where trade relations with much of the world was normalized at the end of the 1970’s, and yes, not only more economic freedom but also a thirst for political freedom followed.  The problem is Deng Xiaoping continued to rule Communist China with an iron fist as if his name were Mao Tse-tung, a fact which was demonstrated brutally in Tibet in March of 1989, and later (to the horror of the whole world) at Tiananmen Square in Beijing the following June.

This is only a paltry presentation of Ron Paul’s foreign policy stances, and there are definite disagreements (although maybe not as much as you initially thought), but if for no other reason, with what is happening to our country at the hands of the Obama administration, both economically and domestically, it leaves me to wonder: how can we enforce an effective foreign policy of any kind if we can’t afford it?  How can we put foreign policy on the top of our national priorities if we’re looking at bigger problems at home?  This leads us now to the very strengths of Ron Paul as a candidate, and why I ultimately concluded back in December of last year that he is the best one in the current field of candidates seeking the Republican nomination.

His economic plan, his Plan To Restore America <http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/> , calls for drastic cuts in our spending, a trillion dollars (yes, trillion with a T) in his first year (not term, year) in office, and he backs up this seemingly hollow platitude with details as to where those cuts will take place.  It should further be noted that some of those cuts include the complete defunding of five whole Cabinet departments, which would mean a shrinking of the current size of the federal government; in other words, two birds would be killed with one stone.  The plan also calls for a balanced budget by the end of the third year of his first term, and many onerous regulations, including ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, would be repealed, as would all regulations enacted by executive orders.  My description of this plan doesn’t do it justice, so I hope you will take a good look at it.

He advocates free-market capitalism as a solution to the issues we face in regards to health care and energy, supports upholding the rule of law and securing the borders when it comes to illegal immigration (as well as removing the entitlements given to illegals when they come here), is in favor of Right-To-Work (as was passed here in Indiana earlier this year), believes parents should have the freedom to choose their children’s education (including homeschooling), and for those of you who were supporting Rick Santorum and put social issues on the top of your own priorities, in Ron Paul you have someone who is pro-life (I wouldn’t support him if he wasn’t), opposes gay marriage, and is pro-gun. Now supporters of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich could try and counter with responses of their own as to why their candidates should be supported; time to tackle those responses next.

Gingrich supporters say their candidate is still very much in the race and is in it to win, but I find that contradictory <http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/04/08/gingrich-romney-most-likely-will-be-republican-nominee-sens-conrad-johnson-talk-budget-ba>  to his interview with Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday.  It appears he is resigned to the idea of Romney winning the nomination, and wants to remain in the race in order to have an ideological influence in the Republican Party’s platform.  In addition, while Gingrich has not done well in his own base (the South), winning only South Carolina and his home state of Georgia, he has fared even worse outside of the South, with numbers decidedly in the single digits in most of those contests.  Ron Paul, meanwhile, has been focusing his efforts on getting the lion’s share of delegates in caucus states, and despite problems his supporters have faced in several states (including Alaska <http://hoosiers4sarah.blogspot.com/2012/04/ron-paul-vs-alaska-gop.html> ), it seems to be paying off.

Romney supporters say he has the most delegates, his conservatism is genuine and we need to support him now so we can beat Barack Obama in the general election.  First off, the number of delegates cannot be known for sure, as not all of the states have fully determined how many delegates will go to which candidate.  As for the claim of genuine conservatism, it is used to counter his past statements in the 1990’s and his record as Governor of Massachusetts, but it hasn’t been a convincing claim, as evidenced by the fact in most of the states where he won, he failed to get a clear majority of the votes (which also calls into question his electability).  Add in the infamous Etch-a-Sketch moment from his aide, and you have a candidate a majority of Republican voters simply don’t trust.  And there’s also the matter of ObamaCare, something which Doug Brady brought up <http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2012/04/confirmed-romney-nomination-torpedoes-unpopular-obamacare-as-an-effective-gop-campaign-issue.html>  as recently as ten days ago.  How can one make the case for a candidate on health care when that same candidate supported a system similar to his opponent’s?  It makes the contention of Romney being the lesser of two evils <http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2012/04/mitt-romney-is-a-classic-lesser-of-two-evils-candidate.html>  more difficult to make.

In Ron Paul, we have a candidate who is a clear opposite of Barack Obama, is in this race to win, can defeat Obama in November and is consistent.  I hope I have made a convincing case for those of you about to vote to cast that vote for him.  Thank you.

Morgan Rigg (a.k.a. INCubbie)

(460 Posts)

Leave a Reply