If not always correct, Ron Paul is credible. What I mean by that is he at least conveys a sense of sincerity in his positions and beliefs. If he doesn't like something or somebody, he tells me and tells me why. If he as a plan, he tells me what and how. If he changes his mind, he has a reason other than political pandering. If he doesn't know what to do, he tells me how he would make a decision. In a day in age when we declined to elect a "Maverick" who rarely seemed to have a coherent platform and instead elected a "Messiah" who either had no platform, an entirely emotional-platform, a hidden platform, or a 'flexible' platform (see campaign finance), a politician who relies on reasons for his positions is very enlightening. I could say Paul relies on reason to form his platform, but that is a fairly subjective test and I'm sure Obama and McCain make their decisions rationally. But I digress.
In short, I find it very difficult to not be attracted to Ron Paul's approach even if I often disagree with him on issues. In otherwords, I find him to be very credible, if not always correct.
2 comments:
Mr. Bdawg, sir, please tell me that you voted for Ron Paul!
When I asked for a pencil to write-in his name, all the poll workers (including, no doubt the passive electioneering Obama-paraphernalia-sporting "poll-watcher") looked rather stunned. Around here I guess you're just supposed to be quiet and vote for the person whose signs are posted outside the polling place (Obama).
After a pronounced moment of confusion, one of them stopped blinking long enough to offer me a pen and I got back to the business of selecting the best man for the job.
PA is definitely not fertile-ground for the folks voting outside the duopoly. Hopefully it was easier in Utah.
We have fancy electronic ballot's here, so I didn't write in Ron Paul. I typed him in. Or more acuratley, touch-screen hen-pecked him in. I took a picture on my cell phone. I'll post it, just to let everyone know what a nut I am.
Post a Comment