"The Paul Paradox"

As the Republican primary season moves forward at high speed, many still wonder why Ron Paul is even in the race. He has little charisma and comes across as an "old man" in the debates. Now I am also an "old man", so that is not a pejorative statement. But contrary to his image, he continues to get strong support in these early races and ironically much of this "old man's" support comes from young people.

In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.

I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own.  But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.

This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates.  In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.

His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed.  He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs.  It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.

So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.

Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no.  Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional.  Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.