You also mentioned Bush and he is exactly the type of candidate that fits what UC said we should be looking for in a leader. Just as you said, look what happened. I would much prefer Ron Paul who doesn’t fit UC’s defintion and maybe we would have a better outcome.

I agree that whoever wins this year will likely end up with a terrible mess of an economy and very well could be booted out in four years because everything they do will make things worse. To be quite honest four years from now may actually be a better time to get a freedom oriented person elected as hopefully we will be able to turn a corner on our economy by then and possibly we will be even more sick of being in the middle east after another four years.

You are almost talking like you think Ron Paul has a pretty good chance of being elected. I do not think he has much of a chance, but what I do think he has is a national stage to talk about ideas and in voting for him showing that these ideas still have value in America.

I really want to keep the match lit until another, better candidate comes along to flame the fire and I think the chances of doing that are better with the more votes Ron Paul gets.

I really don’t know enough about Mr. Root to have an opinion about him. You may be entirely right that he is better on the issues. The problem is that almost nobody knows about him so they have no clue about where he actually stands on the issues.

I actually agree with you that I don’t think that Ron Paul will be able to carry the torch but if enough of us vote for him he will be able to ignite a movement much like Goldwater. If enough of us just decide to not vote for him, vote for someone else, or not vote at all that could easily put out the light that he lit. I would love to see him be the Goldwater of our day and someone better actually take us to the point of getting elected much like Reagan took the torch from Goldwater and actually got elected.

I am looking at this more about moving the movement forward. Ron Paul lit a fire and really started moving it forward. I would hate to see our movement die out because so many people drop out because he just didn’t get enough votes or they are persuaded to not vote for him by people such as people at this site because they want you to vote for someone who can get their goals implemented. Who cares if they can get them implemented if they won’t get elected. The stand on the issues and ability to be heard by a huge number of voters is what counts in this case. The libertarian candidates fall down on the second part of this as they are not able to get their message across through big and small media to that many people. While Ron Paul possibly is not as good as the other libertarian candidates on the issues he is still pretty good and he has had a national stage to be heard through debates and through big media.

I can’t exactly answer for UC, but I think that neither he, nor Doug, nor I wish to see McCain, Hillary, or Obama in the Oval Office. You are correct when you say that they’re flat wrong on the issues and may even be able to implement them.

However, depending on the situation, winning the battle can cause you to lose the war, and vice versa.

As an example, look at Bush. Bush and the Republican Congress have basically discredited conservatism in a way that will damage the entire conservative movement for at least a decade. His ability to sell himself as a conservative but then implement statist economic policies, all while acting like a religious bigot and panderer of the highest order, have ensured that we are almost guaranteed Democrat rule of the White House and both houses of Congress come January 2009.

What will happen if Ron Paul came into under the mantle of freedom, then proceeds to be a useless and ineffective leader who gets steamrolled by Congress and tossed out after one term? He’ll be blamed for all the bad things Congress does, will inherit a recession (that like most Presidents, he’ll be blamed for even if it’s Bush’s fault), and may damage the freedom movement in the process.

Goldwater ignited a movement but wasn’t the one who carried the torch. Ron Paul doesn’t seem to have the skills to carry the torch on this one, why not simply allow him to be the match, and find a better torch-bearer?

As I said in my passage I was talking about candidates that even remotely have a chance and Root doesn’t fit that category in my book.

I thought the Paul supporters are suggesting that we should be voting for the best man for the job, not “compromising” and voting to try to be a part of the “winning team”. I thought that was the argument against other people who might vote for a “more electable” Republican than Ron Paul.

If the question is who has the best experience, is best on the issues, and is most competent to manage the office, again I’d ask what evidence you have to suggest that Wayne Allen Root (who will likely be on the ballot in November, while Ron Paul will not) is less qualified than Ron Paul?

The more I think about it, the more I think you are completely wrong. I believe a presidential candidates stance on the issues is far more important than what you described above, which I will boil down to being able to get your ideas implemented.

Let’s look at this in a simplistic manner but on four axes. One side will be being right on the issues. The opposite side will be wrong on the issues. The other axes will be able to get your ideas implemented on the one side and not able to on the other side.

I think we can all agree that the best scenario would be being right on the issues and able to get them implemented. Here is where we seem to disagree. My second best position (actually probably a tie with third) would be to be right on the issues but unable to get them implemented. The third best would be wrong on the issues but unable to get them implemented. Coming in last by far would be wrong on issues but able to implement them.

What you described as the qualities needed in a leader are pretty much every President we have had in history. The problem, however, has been that at least over the last 75 yrs or so most of the Presidents have been wrong on the issues, including the leading three this year. This has brought our country on the brink of bankruptcy and closer and closer to socialism/facism or whatever you want to call it. I would much rather have taken a President who was right on the issues but unable to get them implmented then what we have gotten in Presidents who were wrong on the issues but able to get their ideas implemented. If we would have focused more on their stance on the issues than if they could get them implemented we would be far better off today. I would say the same about this years race.

I don’t know a thing about Wayne Allan Root other than that he is running for the nomination for the Libertarian Candidate for President. Nobody else knows anything about him either except for a handful of libertarians. As I said in my passage I was talking about candidates that even remotely have a chance and Root doesn’t fit that category in my book. In some peoples eyes neither does Paul, but he has gained far better name recognition than any Libertarian candidate, including Root. He has been in national debates and has pulled far more votes than any current libertarian candidate could even dream of. I will agree, however, that if Ron Paul is not a potential selection than I will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate.

UC

I was responding to the article in which it finished by saying “maybe we should instead focus on what we will all experience if his or her policy proposals are realized.” This talked about nothing you brought up. Stephen said we should focus on what would happen if the policy proposals were realized. I pointed out that Ron Paul’s policy proposals were better than the other candidates. So what you are telling me is that Hillary, McCain, and Obama are better on their policy proposals then what Paul is? Again Stephen never mentioned anything you brought up so quit changing the subject. If you want to talk about those things that is fine but that is an entirely different subject than what would happen if their policy proposals were realized. I will actually agree with you that Paul is not the best in the areas you described but most people who are pretty good at what you described, at least in the political scene, are corrupt to the bone. That is how they got good at it. I will also agree with you that the qualities you mentioned are important in a leader but I will remind you that those were not what the article came to a conclusion that we should look at. Lastly, if those are the qualities you look at in a candidate then the Libertarian party has never had anyone worth voting for. So that leaves you with the democratic candidate and McCain. Which of those is better in the qualities you described? I assume then that is the person that you will be voting for. For me I will still take the candidate that is better on the issues over the other three who may be better in actually getting their wrong stand on issues forced upon us. I would rather have someone who is right on the issues but can’t get them enacted than who is wrong on the issues but can get them enacted. At least we wouldn’t continue moving further in the wrong direction.

All of the qualities you mentioned are more important in my view than legislative experience and at least as important as real world experience.

Having great ideas is certainly important, but it’s equally or even more important to have the ability to convince a majority of voters that your ideas are worth implementing, the bargaining skills to convince others in power to help you achieve those goals, and the managerial competence to appoint the right people to carry them out. Those are things that comprise good experience and they’re essential for a leader.

TerryP,

With all due respect, Ron Paul didn’t have any of those qualities.

Would you say he has more experience and/or is better on the issues than Libertarians such as Wayne Allen Root? If so, what do you base that on?

He even brings business experience in running his medical practice and political experience with his number of years in Congress and being on numerous congressional commitees. He also served our country in the military.

He has the experience and he is the best on the issues. Vote Ron Paul.