Paul is not the ideal candidate but, rather, the least imperfect. Progressives must look past party affiliation and consider a detractor from the current Democratic administration.
Instead of the harmful and denigrating War on Drugs, War on Terror and War on Whistleblowers that Obama has waged, Paul only has one constitutionally-sound war — on the status quo. Four more years of Obama would simply serve to aggrandize his administration, providing him with our consent to further employ his executive power to subvert the proud American brand.
It might be good if all Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) were to pause for a moment and imagine that the Federal government was regularly dropping cluster bombs on their communities to combat suspected terrorists. And that due to these bombings, scores of innocent people, including family members, friends, and neighbors, were being maimed and killed.
The Left has complained for decades that it is unable to reach much of the American public with a message of peace. In large part that is due to a cultural gap – the “progressive” Left does not speak in the same language as much of the country. Nor does the Left share the same worldview as many Americans. Ron Paul does, and he can reach, in fact, has reached these people with a solid anti-intervention message. Paul does not ask that his base change its worldview but simply to understand that anti-interventionism is a consistent part of that view. Paul speaks in straightforward terms. Let us stop poking our nose into other nations’ business and stop wasting our money doing so. He reaches people never before touched by an anti-war message. How can the Left pass up the chance to help such a candidate?
Read the rest, by John V. Walsh
“Our fighting men and women take an oath to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman, Jesse Benton. “They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously, and who will fight to ensure that we don’t misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country.”
RON PAUL CAMPAIGN RAISES MOST DONATIONS FROM MILITARY
5 Reasons Progressives Should Join the Ron Paul Revolution
PEACE, CIVIL LIBERTIES, economy, healthcare, wedge issues
by Eric Blair
There aren't many people still calling Ron Paul's ideas radical. In fact, his credibility in the eyes of many has only been fortified since his 2008 candidacy due to his consistently accurate analysis. His 2012 presidential campaign is in full swing, armed with a formidable war chest, impressive straw poll victories, and the same resonating message of peace and liberty. Yet, he has been completely ignored by the progressive media.
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
My Plan for a Freedom President
How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office
by Ron Paul
Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.
Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help — churches and private charities.
Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO's of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.
No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda.