I just started reading about Ron Paul, Republican contender for the U.S. presidency in 2008. Now I don't know which doomed candidate to vocally, but not materially support.
I really like Mike Huckabee. I'm unenthused by his views of what the U.S. needs to be doing in Iraq, because he is saying borderline-nonsensical things like "We must win in Iraq," rather than, "We must solve the ridiculous problems our Commander-in-Chief created for us in Iraq." Other than that, the guy is saying the kinds of things I want to hear from a presidential candidate.
However, Mr. Paul is saying things like:
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Which, I mean, yeah.
Paul is more libertarian than I really want in a POTUS. But I wouldn't mind sending a Libertarian into national government to start swinging things his or her way. I don't want the Libertarian to control the whole swingset. But I want him on the playground right now. And unlike many Libertarians I've had the displeasure of sitting next to, Paul is both firm in his convictions and yet not belittling of others. How novel.
The strange thing to me is that both of these candidates are Republicans. I have approximately zero giveadamn for political parties, but for the last decade or so, I haven't heard many sensible things come out of Republican mouths. Suddenly, a cloudburst!
The Constitution party might have to work for my vote in 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment