2008 Presidential Election

Ron Paul appears to be gaining a lot of momentum in his dark-horse candidacy for the '08 Republican nomination. He's receiving more mainstream coverage because of his grass roots supports that he's getting on the internet. It doesn't hurt that he's collecting more money than any other candidate not named Hillary or Barack. $3.8 in one day ain't too shabby.

So, why am I Paul fan? What differentiates him from the other Republicans?

Well, in order to be President, you have to want the job. I think someone forgot to tell Fred Thompson about that simple requirement. Secondly, you have to stand for something, rather than shifting in the wind, or flip-flopping. Scratch Mitt Romney from consideration there. Can't be a pro-choicer and then a pro-lifer when it's convenient. Genuine conversion's fine, but Romney's doesn't to parallel Reagan's conversion to the Republican Party in the 1960's.

You have to have some support for your candidacy. However much I admire John McCain record and see eye-to-eye with him on some issues, he's on the decline and doesn't appear to have any life left in him. He's no longer the darling of the New Hampshire independents. Similarly, Mike Huckabee stands no chance. The fact that Bill Clinton has alluded to his being the only "dark-horse" candidate out there amongst the Republicans gives him some iota of hope, but it could be Clinton's way supporting the weakest Republican out there. He also has very troubling populist economic positions. And Duncan Hunter, well, forgive me for not knowing much about him other than that he's a House member from California.

One may argue that Paul is the most poised to win the presidency against Hillary based on his clear and consistent opposition to the war in Iraq. No other major candidate, besides Obama (although he wasn't in the Senate when the Iraq war vote came up in Congress), can lay hold to the claim of having been against the Iraq War from the start. Dennis Kucinich has always opposed the war, but you can't really call his candidacy serious in any way, shape or form. The Iraq issue is one of the most important issues, and it seems that it will dominate the '08 campaign. A Paul candidacy may siphon away liberal Democrats who are loathe to vote for the centrist Hillary.

I completely agree with Dr. Paul on the issue of abortion. He believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but believes that the issue of abortion should be a states' right issue at this point in time. Doing that will, no doubt, be messy in the short-run, but doing so gives some flexibility to the issue and would honor the 10th Amendment principle of federalism to the forefront.

My initial support for Paul's candidacy stemmed from his economic views, which make a whole lot of sense. Part of my skepticism, actually, is that he makes TOO much sense. It's scary to think that there's actually a politician out there that formulates his own economic policies based on what he thinks is right rather than having a team of advisors package a viewpoint that is the most politically advantageous.

I completely support (in theory) Paul's idea of abolishing the 16th Amendment, which legalized the income tax as well as his idea that we should do away with the inflation tax, Federal Reserve, and fiat money.

What Paul stands for requires a lot of intellectual thought and education on what the heck "fiat" means and how this inflation serves as a tax on the public. It requires a studying of the issues. That's what's appealing about his candidacy. He's a charismatic speaker and conveys his message well, but the Ron Paul Revolution is based on principles and not his personality.

And that's why I donated another $25 to Ron Paul's campaign today.