I adore the pure and beautiful American concept of small government.
I long for a nation where a state is free to regulate and deregulate according to the will of it’s citizens. To be, in my case, an Ohioan first and an American second. Much the same way that our founding fathers identified themselves as Virginians.
So, if you were in the business of making assumptions you would assume that small government minded, states rights advocating, conservative independents like myself would be stamping envelopes and knocking on doors garnering support for Congressman Ron Paul. Right?
Well…
I love Ron Paul’s politics. We see eye to eye on so many of our principles. How wonderful it would be to not choose progressive-lite in this election and cast a vote for a conservative. With Ron Paul, we also get his plan to limit the size of government and restore America. 
Ron Paul’s stance on right to life is perfectly aligned with my own. His thoughts on right to work and his plan to balance the federal budget place him exactly in line with the principles of most conservatives, while still slightly to the left of most libertarians. What a wonderful choice for your primary and caucus vote–except that he is still… Ron Paul.
So why can’t the most conservative candidate in the whole field win the conservative stamp of approval and the nomination of the GOP?
1. He answers criticism by telling you what his opponent did or did not do:
Mother voice: Ron did you take that cookie from Mitt Romney?
Ron: Yes, but Rick Santorum claims he is for a balanced budget, but has never done anything about it.
That is if he bothers to answer it at all. Take the accusation concerning articles published in the Ron Paul Political Report that contained numerous racist and anti Israel comments. When these comments surfaced for the second time in 2008 (the first in 2006) Paul responded, “I never read that stuff. I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written, and it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this.”
2. He will not compromise.
Ron Paul has by far the most consistent voting record of any candidate in this primary race. He has time and again proven that when he holds a position he will not be moved. A great attribute for a congressman or a state representative, but sometimes in leadership I feel the man at the top has to give a little and consider ideas that originate outside of his own head. Failing that a leader must at least build consensus and not simply state “this is the way it is going to be.” The past three years have shown us what that looks like. I am not interested in four more years of ramrod politics, even if I would often agree with the man in possession of the ramrod.
3. He is kind of a creepy Grandpa type… sort of like, “pull my finger, and we’ll balance the budget.”
The longer he remains in the race the more likely it is that the nomination will go to one of the less viable candidates. In 2008, Ron Paul’s unwillingness to walk away from a primary race that he knew he could not win gave us John McCain – a presidential candidate that doomed us to the fate of four years of full flavor progressive.
When you put all of these attributes together Ron Paul is the conservative Ralph Nader. A humorous and dangerous distraction. A caricature that embodies all of the most extreme stances of a party and as a result is completely unelectable.
Will he have what it takes to realize the futility of his continued campaign, or will conservatives again be forced to pull the lever for the “lesser of two evils”?
I have trouble seeing why anybody with a functioning brain would want a man who denies scientific evidence because of irrational convictions to make policy decisions on his behalf.
I have to call this into question: “In 2008, Ron Paul’s unwillingness to walk away from a primary race that he knew he could not win gave us John McCain – a presidential candidate that doomed us to the fate of four years of full flavor progressive.”
In what way did Ron Paul’s candidacy in 08 cause the nomination of John McCain? He was pretty much a non-factor, even if he had his provocative moments in debates (like his challenging Giuliani on 9/11 and blowback). Of course, you might have a valid point in this election, but what candidate might absorb his support if he were to drop out? Of course there was Gary Johnson, but to my knowledge he didn’t have near the infrastructure or support base of Paul prior to this election (whether he should have had it is another story). But within those candidates who have seemed to have a chance, where would Paul’s support go if he left the race and didn’t run as a third party? What non-Romney might win the race and represent the values of balanced budgets and states’ rights better than Romney? Is it Gingrich, who flips and flops back, and unlike Romney, doesn’t even seem to take a measured consideration of the consequences of these changed stances? Is it Cain, who can’t keep major interventions straight? Is it Huntsman, who can’t seem to muster up support (although maybe he would have taken a larger share of the vote in NH given Paul dropping out)? Bachmann or Perry?
I realize some of these candidates have dropped out, but I use them since they were or are the major potential alternatives to Romney.
This might be my cynicism showing, but I tend to believe you can only really guess what the incumbent is gonna do. You can look at the campaign rhetoric of pretty much every president and see the promises far outpace the ability. Reagan (small government), Bush (no new taxes), Clinton (healthcare reform), Bush 2.0 (nation building) or Obama (change). Candidates will say what they have to on the campaign trail, but you really can’t say what someone will do until they’re in office.
Let’s take Ron Paul for example. I have a lot of respect for the man. While I don’t agree with most of his analysis’ and more than half of his policies, I respect his consistency. Except for the Ron Paul Report fiasco he’s been pretty reliable. But the reality is, even if the man wins, he has to get past Congress, the media, and the lobbyists to do most of the big items he wants to do. The same applies to the international community. If he wants to withdraw from the U.N. or NAFTA or bring all our troops home, his idealism will be tempered by the realities of our political environment.
Who knows what Romney will do? I don’t.
1) Of course he does. He’s a politician running for office.
2) Of course he won’t. He’s a Randian Libertarian (you don’t compromise morals for practicality).
3) Well, yeah.