In today’s NYT, a lengthy, detailed and balanced piece on the unconventional candidacy of Ron Paul. In case you haven’t guessed by now, I’m voting for Ron Paul. In fact, this is the first time that I have put a presidential candidate’s bumper sticker on my car and the first time I’ll be voting for a major-party candidate in a presidential race. Of course, I don’t agree with Dr. Paul on everything (I don’t think that fiat money is a big deal; I’d rather see market-based currencies anyway. Also, I think that although not ideal, international trade agreements like Nafta have done more harm than good. Etc.), but he’s the only trustworthy politician (never thought I’d put those two words together) running for president. Look at his voting record. He is a consistent advocate for the principles of liberty and does not back down in the face of overwhelming odds and peer pressure. He actually does what says and says what he does; WYSIWYG, which, sadly, is all too rare in today’s political environment.
I went to the Ron Paul meetup group meeting yesterday and found myself with mostly JBS-type conservatives, which didn’t come as much of a surprise (this is Alabama after all), but there were also a couple of left-libertarian, antiwar folks, a mix which should give you an indication of the type of coalition-building potential that Dr. Paul can garner. If he can tap into and unite these various disaffected factions as well as draw a healthy proportion of mainstream conservatives and anti-war democrats, I think he could pull a Goldwater and get the nomination. And, if that happens, the presidency wouldn’t seem too far out of reach.
NYT link via Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Blog.