Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Why Ron Paul needs to stop running for President

I know the Paulistas out there aren't going to like this blog post, but Congressman Ron Paul needs to stop running for President. He needs to sit out this 2012 race and not run for the White House anymore. Why?...

1. He's too old.

I personally don't believe in ageism. I think people can do wonderful and creative things at all ages. However, many voters do not feel the same way. One of our greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan, was 69 years old when he was elected President. News commentators continually harped on that fact and worried openly about him dying in office. People forget that Ronald Reagan was elected in spite of his age, not because of it. If Jimmy Carter had not made a shambles out of the economy in 1980, Reagan would have lost that election. The simple fact is this.....Ron Paul will be 77 years old on election day in 2012. He would be 81 on election day in 2016. Our current President was 47 years old on the day he assumed his office. Voters notice things like that.

2. He can't win.

Ron Paul ran for President in 2008, spending over 37 million dollars...and he didn't win a single state primary. In 2012, he would most likely be facing a field with some of the same candidates (Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee) who beat him in 2008. There is no compelling reason to believe the results will be any different this time around.

3. He makes poor decisions.

This is a man who spent over 37 million dollars running for President...yet he can't avoid getting pranked by a famous comedian? If you watch this video, you see Congressman Ron Paul being made the brunt of a joke by world-famous comedian Sasha Baron Cohen. Are you telling me that Ron Paul was ignorant of this mans reputation, and still agreed to an interview with him? Didn't he employ any staff members with knowledge of popular culture to warn him of this mans reputation? He never should have been in that situation. Would Newt Gingrich agree to an interview with Cohen? No.

And Ron Paul is supposed to protect America and the free world? Yikes....

4. His ideology is unsound.

I'll be honest. I purchased and read Ron Paul's book "The Revolution". There were many things I liked about his book. There were many great ideas. I absolutely agree with him on many aspects of his criticism of our current government policies concerning the printing of money and the accumulation of debt. In these areas, I actually think Ron Paul is somewhat of a genius.

I also agree with him that the cost of our military industrial complex to support our military objectives needs to be reduced. Paul says we don't need to keep troops in Japan and Germany anymore. I agree. Those wars have been over for 65 years now. However, Ron Paul has such strong Libertarian tendencies, that I fear him becoming Commander in Chief of our military. He has a dangerously naive world view that if we just leave other countries alone, then we won't have any problems anymore.

The "religion" of Islam has been at war with the rest of the world for 1400 years. It is a religion so violent and dangerous that they have killed millions of their fellow Muslims. In Ron Pauls world, he thinks it would be ok to turn our backs towards these peace-loving people. I disagree.

5. His son, Rand, is actually the better candidate.

Rand Paul was elected to the U.S. Senate in his first run at office. In fact, he set fundraising records in Kentucky during that campaign. He shows great potential in the future. Rand seems to share a lot of his fathers libertarian ideologies, yet seems more practical when it comes to matters of national security. In the battle to support the causes of personal freedom, it may be time for Ron Paul to step aside and let his son Rand lead the charge.