Quote:
Originally Posted by garentee  While I do not agree with Newt, I would add to Snerps points by saying he is by far the smartest of the candidates. Like him or hate him, he knows his stuff.. |
Paul's also no Bachmann or Perry. And what Paul doesn't do is constantly argue ethos or do what amounts to a Chewbacca defense in debate (obfuscate the issue in an attempt to confuse his audience and slip in fallacious arguments). Nor does he constantly flip-flop. Or sell access.
Gringrich
is smart: he's just smart in some of the most blatantly despicable, borderline corrupt, exclusively self-serving ways possible, and he needs to stay out of office. His brand is smart, competent, establishment. He's what people are looking for when half the Republican party is going off the fundamentalist deep-end. And he also deserves zero public trust, none.
Frankly, I disagree with Paul, strongly, on over half the issues. But he's nothing if not principled. He would make changes that most politicians on the left or right are too cowardly to make: like ending the wars, including the war on drugs. Changes that a majority of people in this country want, and that would be hell to undo after he left office. Obama's not going to do that, even if he would be "safer", but frankly, as someone who's mostly "left" by this country's political dualism, I'm not very impressed with what the current administration has done, overall. Hit and miss, in my view--and miss in some very big ways. I think a Ron Paul administration would be a very interesting, very strategic win.
Paul is also neck-and-neck with Gringrich in Iowa. I don't think it's likely he's going to win anything. But if he did win the primary, I could definitely see myself voting Republican--though I'll likely end up voting against Gringrich or for a third party--though I don't see either having an effect, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.