As odious as the thought may be, when I consider my politics right now, in a mindless moment I might consider voting for an Independent Ron Paul. I campaigned as a Democrat/Libertarian, so my natural inclinations are towards Libertarian policies. Paul, like me, is also anti-establishment. Perhaps this is just a post-Holiday, sugar high hangover? It’s like listening to a really, really bad song that just happens to have a few good notes that you can’t get out of your head.
With the exception of the recently departed Huntsman, all other GOP candidates are excluded from consideration. The GOP has degenerated faster than a remake of “Idiocracy” into a Party with cultural policies that are driven by fear and intolerance, and economic policies which will only complete the destruction of the middle-class and codify our Nation as the fastest growing Plutocracy in the world. A GOP win will be a disaster for our Country economically and civilly.
That leaves only President Obama and a possible Independent, Ron Paul. There is no question in my mind that Paul’s foreign policy is far superior to President Obama’s and attacks the most destructive influence of our lifetime: the military-industrial complex. Obama has ended Iraq, but significantly increased militarism elsewhere. We now have our military fighting and dying in more Countries than under any Republican administration. The “Masters of War” are cleaning up under President Obama. This is the most compelling argument Paul makes.
One argument against a President Paul is that his economic policies are bizarre. This is true, but the President is virtually a gate-keeper to Congressional budgeting. Paul might, at least, stem the tide of economic injustice and the steady movement toward Plutocracy. For example, Paul says he would decrease Federal regulation of the Wall St. robber-barons, but increase enforcement of existing laws. President Obama has only implemented inadequate and ineffective regulations and virtually ignored criminality on Wall St. A President Paul would at least go after economic criminality, which could arguably have a greater effect than the present policies. Obama and Paul say they will reform tax codes, but who would you trust to actually do it? President Obama has had over three years to do it and has only now begun to talk about it. The government is still owned by the 1%.
Another argument against Paul is civil rights. In the past some flagrantly racist and xenophobic articles have been published in his name. He has disavowed them, but continues to attack the Federal role in the Civil Rights Act, i.e. he doesn’t disagree with the goal, just the implementation. That position pretty much ends any consideration of Paul in my mind. On the other hand, a President Paul could not reverse the Civil Rights Act on his own, and the one consistent feature of Paul has been his insistence on civil liberties, much to the chagrin of the GOP. Whatever harm Paul presents to civil liberties, we also have a clear track record of President Obama attacking them via the Patriot Act and the recent Defense Appropriation Bill virtually abrogating Habeas Corpus rights for citizens. Ron Paul would have vetoed both.
How bad is it when I am actually considering Ron Paul? Anyway, it is unlikely that Paul will survive the process. He challenges the real power behind all politics these days, and those guys don’t last long…
FiegerTime - Geoffrey Fieger's Blog 
In presidential elections, we have a choice between Dumb and Dumber.
Yes, Ron Paul is imperfect, but I can’t imagine any rational person thinking anything will be different under another Obama term or Gingrich/Romney. It is like an Ed Wood movie – one must suspend disbelief and give yourself over to blind obedience to the “message.”
The thing about Ron Paul is that he sticks to his guns. While enunciating a Golden Rule in foreign policy – he was being booed for honestly telling his beliefs – and he did not back down. Newt and Romney smiled in the background (the same as McCain did when RP told of the issues with the Federal Reserve) as Paul stood on principle. I trust Ron Paul more than ANY of the candidates which are, to varying degrees, sociopaths. Do you really think Newt will keep his word? Or Romney? Or Obama? It’s a game, a sophisticated marketing effort, not a projection of proposed policy. Ron Paul at least has a soul and a concept of shame. There is no basic decency among the other candidates. Think about it. Paul is condemning the killing of innocents overseas. That is a wild, out of the GOP mainstream, “religious right” concept? Now, accepting that principle as genuine, that the killing of innocents is morally wrong, would such a candidate, if elected President, condone the killing of Americans when the food riots begin? And don’t fool yourself, these civil disturbances are coming, right along with $10 per gallon gasoline.
I was at Oakland University for the debate (out in the cold with the other Ron Paul supporters – the GOP establishment would not give or sell us any tickets) and I have first hand knowledge of how many people came out to greet Paul. One full bus from Ann Arbor, one full bus from Jackson, and 200 from Detroit Metro Area. Guess how many for Newt? Romney? McCain? Bachman? Santorum? Huntsman? All combined was ZERO. If they don’t buy them, they don’t get them. Dr. Paul visited supporter at Red Ox Tavern and Buscemis (both packed with supporters) and spent over 45 minutes at each location.
One last simple analogy. If you are sick and go to the doctor and he gives you medicine, such as tax cuts for the richest 1%, deregulation of the financial sector, and subsidies for huge corporations, and your health steadily deteriorate. The sicker you get the more you are told that you just need more medicine. Just wait, and take more medicine. Well, I suggest you need to find a different doctor, because your doctor is making money not by making you well, but by selling you the medicine. Romney and Gingrich have stated in the debates that they intend to lower taxes and deregulate the financial sector.