Republican Presidential candidate has little chance of gaining his party’s nomination. While parts of his expressed contempt for the federal government is echoed by his rivals, the application of his ideals is beyond where even they might go. But more importantly Paul does not buy into the eternal war mentality that has become de rigeur among our political leaders  in the aftermath of 9/11.

Ron Paul has been outspoken on his opposition to: continuing our stupid encroachment in Afghanistan, militarily intervening to stop Iran from building an atomic bomb, and blindly clinging to whatever unhumanitarian policy Israel adopts towards Palestine.

Paul’s criticisms of war extends to the domestic acts taken in the name of thwarting terrorism including the execrable Patriot Act which is anything but.

I will let Paul speak for himself in this video from the November debate on foreign policy with the then Republican contenders.

It is over 15 minutes long but very worthwhile watching.

I do have serious problems with Paul’s positions on domestic issues in terms of the role of the government, monetary policy, Social Security and the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and a host of other eye-opening statements he has made in debates or during other public appearances.

I voted for Barack Obama enthusiastically in 2008 but have become enormously dissatisfied with him as he continues our insane involvement in Afghanistan, has failed to close Guantanamo, has continued indefinite detention without charges of terror suspects, and has taken to killing alleged terrorists who are American citizens without any charges being filed nor a trial held nor a verdict rendered nor a sentence imposed.

Paul’s co-candidates disagree with him violently about his foreign policy views. Though they are willing to criticize Obama for his actions or policies in this area, it is generally on the basis that they don’t go far enough.

Given the actual leeway, regardless of constitutionality, granted to Presidents by default on these issues, I have no hope the tide will be turned if any of the GOP contenders defeats Obama in 2012. Paul would but he hasn’t a chance in hell of even gaining the nomination.

Glenn Greenwald of is no fan of Ron Paul. yet he sees the value of Paul’s candidacy in keeping these issues in the conversation. He knows that once Paul’s campaign ends, there will be no room for discussion on ending any of these aberrations, only one as to how Obama’s opponent will outdo him in implementing and continuing these or aggravating these policies, not attempting to eliminate them.

This follow up piece by Greenwald reviews the reactions to the first article which he largely predicted would happen.

I dare say that this conversation is one not many Americans want to have. We have been so thoroughly hoodwinked into buying into these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on terror and even on drugs that we willingly ignore  all the evidence of the totally destructive nature of these endeavors in terms of human lives, monetary expenditures and our national moral fiber.

As much as I would like to depict Ron Paul as “crazy” on these domestic policies he promulgates, I simply acknowledge them as unacceptable to my view of the nature of our federal system.

However, on foreign policy I have no doubt as to Ron Paul’s lucidity, clarity or sanity when he expresses his opinion there.

Sadly there is absolutely no chance that any of these positions will emanate from the mouths of Obama or Romney or the Anti-Romney in this fall’s campaign.

It will be a shame for our nation.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: