To summarize, I think that while Ron Paul is perhaps not the Club for Growth’s (or anyone else’s) version of perfection, he actually has a set of standards he consistently tries to achieve. In a contest of wills, a leader with identifiable standards will either prevail over the fickle mob, or they’ll constantly bicker and get nothing done.

In light of the fact that Ron Paul will support liberty, and Congress “getting things done” usually curtails liberty, I find myself happy with either outcome.

I general, don’t most politicians simply acquiesce to what’s popular? In a 2009 game of chicken, who do you think will blink first: the philosophical freedom advocate with 20+ years of consistent voting, writing, and action (even when he was alone in it) – or a group of slick, inconstant panderers who base their doctrine on leading poll indicators?

As Jeff said in another post, I hope nobody’s paying you for that political advice.

No, that arrow was slung at Doug. Kevin and I are having a reasonable conversation.

“I can have someone who is 51% perfect who can implement 51% of my agenda.”

Congratulations, you aspire to mediocrity. Although your math seems a little flawed, considering that a 51% perfect candidate seems unlikely to be able to accomplish 51% of your goals, unless he failed to achieve every single policy goal that counteracted your philosophy while achieving every single policy goal that you agreed with. Considering how our government is set up, this seems improbable. What’s more likely from a 51% acceptable candidate is a success rate of 25% or less with things you agree with and a success rate of 75% or more for things you oppose. As Jeff said in another post, I hope nobody’s paying you for that political advice.

What’s equally self-defeating is voting for the guy who is 93% perfect and can implement 0% of my agenda

Do you really think that would happen? I see this election as a referendum on “politics as usual”. If Paul is elected and Congress stonewalls him at every turn, I think America would swear in a couple hundred faces in 2011.

We’re talking about a “change” candidate that has impeccable credibility. If 2009 and 2010 turn into a game of “chicken”, Paul won’t be the one blamed for it.

I can have someone who is 51% perfect who can implement 51% of my agenda.

Has that approach been effective? Also, don’t forget to account for the inaction within your agenda. I know there are many thing where I simply pray the government fails to pass a certain bill. President Paul would implement 30% of my agenda with nothing more than a veto pen.

Forgive me for taking so long to respond, I wanted to actually take some time to think about my response.

No problem. It’s actually refreshing to see that some people still do that. :-)

Fortunately, none. The votes of passage have been too lopsided to make a difference in Congress.

Have you considered the possibility that he factored that into his decisions?

Tell him come down to Louisiana (preferably the New Orleans area) and I’ll be more than happy to meet him.

He toured the country this summer, but from this point on, he’ll probably be focusing on the early states. I’ll keep an eye out for you, though.

I can see the value for voting for Ron Paul as a protest vote in the general election. However, there has to be more than just saying the direction (in this case, the Republican party) is wrong.

Even if he didn’t go any farther than that (he does), isn’t awareness and acceptance of a problem the first step towards correction? Wouldn’t he still be closer to the finish line at the end of the day than the hare who runs headlong in the wrong direction?

What’s Ron Paul’s plan about the entitlement shortfall that can actually be implemented?

His own words
- Remove SS receipts from the general fund
- Cease paying benefits to illegal immigrants
- Allow young workers to opt out

What’s Ron Paul’s vision of America’s overall role in the world?

A friendly giant as opposed to the zealous dragon-slayer we are now.
His own words

What’s Ron Paul’s tax reform idea?

Reduce spending to the point where an income tax is unnecessary. Sounds lofty, but it would only require us to go back to FY2000 spending levels.
His own words

These and other ideas Ron Paul needs to articulate other than “Go back to the Constitution” or “Abolish the Federal Reserve” or “Bring the troops home from everywhere”.

You’re right that most of what you hear are just buzz words, but that’s a function of today’s society. Unlike most candidates, however, there’s substance beneath the surface.

I encourage you to watch some of the lengthier videos for a deeper understanding.

Candidates @ Google (1 hour)

PBS (20 minutes):
Part 1
Part 2

Robert Taft Club (1 hour):
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

The whole “perfect is the enemy of the good argument” gets ridiculous when applied to Ron Paul. Non-supporters say, look, he’s not 100% perfect, it’s more like 93%, so join me in voting for someone who’s 51% perfect. Talk about self-defeating.

What’s equally self-defeating is voting for the guy who is 93% perfect and can implement 0% of my agenda when I can have someone who is 51% perfect who can implement 51% of my agenda.

My opinions are my opinions alone. I do not claim to speak for anyone else who posts on this blog nor can I.

As for who I’ve eliminated: Rudy, Huckabee, and pretty much all three leading Democrat candidates.

Forgive me for taking so long to respond, I wanted to actually take some time to think about my response.

Of all the times you believe he should have been more pragmatic, how many of them were negatively impacted by his decision?

Fortunately, none. The votes of passage have been too lopsided to make a difference in Congress.

Most of all, is this fault really a deal-breaker?

By itself, no. But there are other factors.

First, I’m not sure what else he could do, write, or say to reach out more to you. If you get a chance to meet him, you should definitely take advantage of it. I’m glad I did.

Tell him come down to Louisiana (preferably the New Orleans area) and I’ll be more than happy to meet him.

The key is to make it clear to them that Ron Paul couldn’t fully implement a libertarian government even if he wanted to and even if he were reelected. This election is a referendum on the direction of the federal government, not the ultimate destination.

I can see the value for voting for Ron Paul as a protest vote in the general election. However, there has to be more than just saying the direction (in this case, the Republican party) is wrong. You need to lay out an alternative direction. Paul has to his credit laid out some alternative plans, but there needs to be more. What’s Ron Paul’s plan about the entitlement shortfall that can actually be implemented? What’s Ron Paul’s vision of America’s overall role in the world? What’s Ron Paul’s tax reform idea? These and other ideas Ron Paul needs to articulate other than “Go back to the Constitution” or “Abolish the Federal Reserve” or “Bring the troops home from everywhere”.

I have read this string and many other posts on this blog and just don’t understand your logic on mdeciding who you will support for President. Dr. Paul seems to be leading the pack of other candidates in all areas and yet you have definitely decided against him. If I understand what you and others on this blog support, no other Republican or Democratc candidate could be favorable to Dr. Paul. I understand that you will decide later in the year who you will support, but are there any others in the race that you have decided against supporting?

My guess is that as President he will make a fuss about individuals not being able to do what they want with their own money in “private” social security accounts, but likely in the end be willing to compromise some to move us towards a transition away from social security towards individual control and responsiblity that eventually gets us to where he wants us to be, while still ensuring that we cover the promises that we have already made to our older citizens regarding social security.

“The whole “perfect is the enemy of the good argument” gets ridiculous when applied to Ron Paul. Non-supporters say, look, he’s not 100% perfect, it’s more like 93%, so join me in voting for someone who’s 51% perfect. Talk about self-defeating.”

You said it perfectly. In comparison to the other candidates, it’s a joke. If you were to take all the criteria for selection proposed by former comments higher up on this page and use them to screen out the best candidate….Ron Paul wins without a doubt. Craig, your comment was perfect and it was a joy in seeing it phrased so simply yet elegantly.

As for the “truthers” out there. I can’t say that i’m one of them, BUT, i think about people like Noam Chomsky and Aaron Russo, and others who speak of multiple false flag operations in history, war-propaganda, the horrendous truth that democracy is short-lived in the historical record, and you have to wonder given the power grabs that came after 9/11 if there is something more to it. I don’t wear tinfoil on my head, nor do i say that there’s any smoking gun to 9/11 being an inside job, but put in the proper historical context, it becomes MORE likely than not that such a thing, in it’s form and content, could be possible. And if it came to light through an official congressional investigation that it WAS an inside job, the repercussions would be infathomable to most.

Honestly, i think after reading so much out there from so many credible sources that there was inside involvement. There i said it. To what extent and with what specific intent, i’m not sure. Just about every war in recorded history was used as a tool to take over a nations liberties and rights under the guise of “for your safety and security”, and again, a lot of those wars were started by a false flag operation. So history merits a good hard look at what really happened. Look at the cia involvement in vietnam and the congressional hearings that took place then. So much came out, and it was disturbing, they were overthrowing governments, installing military dictatorships, and killing thousands of innocents. These were americans under orders from congressional higher-ups.

Think about it, and don’t rule out anything.

Kevin, thanks for not taking the RedState approach, very mature and commendable. Your arguments are valid, and i understand what you are saying. Thanks for giving Ron a fair shake despite the barrage of Ron supporter emails and backlash that you may receive. But, as i started out in this email, Craig is dead right. Ron may not be 100%, but he’s definitely in the 90′s….so by saying he can’t win constitutes the reasoning for choosing the 51% guy/girl is just wrong.

Issue for issue, no-one stands up against him. He would crush Hillary one-on-one. There isn’t a single candidate with a written record like his, nor a voting record, and ABSOLUTELY not a personal and intellectual record like his. He’s simply the moral, ethical, intellectual, and rational choice for what best represents america.

Take care all.

There is a time and a place for stands on purity and a time and a place to be pragmatic.

Fair enough. A few rhetorical questions to consider: Of all the times you believe he should have been more pragmatic, how many of them were negatively impacted by his decision? How severe do you believe the impact was? Most of all, is this fault really a deal-breaker? Would you really rather continue our headlong pursuit of socialism than risk an occasional imprudent veto?

There’s Ron Paul’s Catch-22.

You’re definitely right about that and it may end up being fatal. Read on to see why it might not be.

He has to reach out to mainstream classical liberals such as myself and at the end, even I’m irrelevant in the big picture.

First, I’m not sure what else he could do, write, or say to reach out more to you. If you get a chance to meet him, you should definitely take advantage of it. I’m glad I did.

But aside from that, this right here is him reaching out to you. If I weren’t typing this right now, I’d be working on one of several marketing efforts. I’m setting them aside for the moment because I know how important you are. You’re the next step. The Truthers were the first 2%, then came the pacifists and then the eager libertarians like myself.

You’re the reluctant libertarian and you’re the next step. You can get us into the high single digits and in such a crowded, imbalanced field, that could easily be enough to start bringing the moderate conservatives on board.

The key is to make it clear to them that Ron Paul couldn’t fully implement a libertarian government even if he wanted to and even if he were reelected. This election is a referendum on the direction of the federal government, not the ultimate destination.