Ron Paul is my first choice for a Republican candidate. There. I've said it. Of all the Republicans, he's the one I think is the best. His positions on the constitution, on the war, on globalism on nation building and interventionism are ones I can get behind. He's not perfect, but he's far, far ahead of any other Republican in the race.
This publisher of one of the top five progressive media sites (based on traffic stats from alexa.com) is endorsing Ron Paul for Republican presidential candidate.
Not only am I endorsing Paul, for the Republican presidential candidacy, but I believe his candidacy would be GREAT for the country, win or lose. A strong Ron Paul showing in early primaries will force Democrats to look at a possible horse race between Ron Paul and the elected Democratic candidate. If, for example, Hillary or Obama win, an odd situation will exist-- a Republican with some positions to the left of a Democrat will be running. This will be devastating when it comes to independent voters. It will do one of two things-- force Hillary and Obama to take more progressive positions, which is not really likely. Or it will strengthen the primary campaigns of the more progressive candidates-- Kucinich, Edwards and Dodd.
Do I think Paul has a shot at winning the Republican nomination? Not a great one, really, but after seeing him on Meet The Press, I give him better odds than before. He did quite well with Tim Russert's efforts to marginalize him. Still, Paul is a huge threat to the powers that be and he will, if his numbers start looking better, be subjected to the same kind of attack Howard Dean suffered when his star started to rise. If Newsweek or Time feature Paul on a cover, look out Ron. The next step will be the high rotation silly image-byte, portraying three seconds of Paul saying or doing something that can be laughed at with contempt, like the mainstream media did to Howard Dean, with his "scream." Dean was not able to survive it and he had his Deaniacs. I don't know how Paul will do under the same assault. Maybe, expecting and anticipating it, he'll have a ready response... after all, as a doctor, he's had to be ready for emergencies all his life.
Even if Paul does not win, another thing he's doing for Progressives is helping a hell of a lot of Republicans to start thinking differently about politics. It's hard to imagine most of the Ron Paul supporters going back to someone like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee or John McCain, who are all so corporation owned, directed and inspired. The "paulparazzi" are all being primed to vote for a more progressive candidate. If Paul does not win the Republican candidacy, then I expect a huge portion of Republican and independent Paul supporters will move to support the Democratic candidate, as long as it is not Hillary. I think anti-hillary reflexes will prevent support for Senator Clinton.
I'm not saying Ron Paul is perfect. He has some positions that I strongly oppose, that progressives don't like, particularly when it comes to the commons-- on support for education, his opposition to federal regulations-- ie., his libertarian opposition to government. I don't believe in using the nation for a test tube. Libertarianism has NEVER been proven to work for a nation. The US is not the place to test that.
But liabilities included, Ron Paul is good for America, win or lose the primaries. You don't have to vote for him if you're a progressive but here's how you can and should support him.
You can certainly talk to your republican friends and family and support him as their best choice. Getting them to be a Paul supporter is a great first step towards waking up to become a progressive. It's not easy to change basic values and beliefs. Ron Paul can be the catalyst who enables just those kinds of basic belief changes to occur. He's doing it. If you're a progressive, you can use him to help "wake up" right wing thinkers you know.
All that said, in the final horse race, I probably won't vote for Ron Paul if he's running against Edwards, Dodd or Kucinich, or even Obama. I don't think Biden has a shot in hell of winning. But if it's between Paul and Clinton, I'll have to think long and hard. And so will a lot of other voters. If polls were taken now, I think they'd show Hillary way ahead. But as the race progressed, as people got to know Paul, I think it would become a very tough race. Even many progressives would, as many already have, take a serious look at Paul, if their alternative was Hillary. It's going to be an interesting year.
I posted this identical article to dailykos and have been attacked and villified by well over 100 comments. Worse, I was given a formal warning by an editor, I assume, about the posting. If you have a user name on dailykos and want to post your opinion, here's the link- Advertisement -
I have to say that I'd heard how nasty , shallow and smallminded commenters on dailykos can be. The fact that so many commented without even reading the posting and then that they reacted to their own, already preconceiced notions, rather than to my actual posting was disappointing, to say the least. Let me make myself clear. I am saying the least because it is disgusting that a purportedly progressive site would behave and allow such behavior. It redoubles my intention to assure that such uncivil nasty commenting does not occur on opednews.com