Reading herein the comments about Ron Paul, it seems that there is confusion from where he draws support. He certainly has support of many conservatives,Â but he also draws support from independents and liberals more so than any other opposing candidate. Ron Paul is his own man. He may be an advocate of the free market, but he himself is not a commodity that can be bought and sold on it.
Itâ€™s been noted that Ron Paul is not so well accepted in the GOP, but rather a fringe member of the party. There is some truth to that. I really donâ€™t believe that Ron Paul would be a Republican if there were some possibility that a third party candidate could have any traction in a Presidential race except serving as a spoiler. Heâ€™s already tried running as a Libertarian, but the myth that anyone could possibly get elected to the highest office in this one-party machine with its two factions is just that, a myth. So I think itâ€™s pretty tacitly understood that Ron Paul is a Republican because he has to be one.
Why does he draw support from such a wide spectrum?Â I think itâ€™s because he is respected by principled people, no matter party affiliation. I ran across a great article written by an independent with obvious liberal leanings. He points out many reasons that any true liberal would probably support Ron Paul.
â€œHe has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn't protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn't overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the â€˜crimeâ€™ of revealing the government's criminal behavior.â€ The second paragraph emphasizes the current Presidentâ€™s role in these atrocities and the nonsensical excuses unprincipled progressives make for these offenses.
Much more a piece written to shine brightly on the inconsistent, foolish â€œlogicâ€ and height of hypocrisy of the typical progressive type than an endorsement of Ron Paul, it also gives some very good reasons for his support from principled left-wing voters, (I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but there are some) as well as not only right leaning independents, but also left leaning independents like the author of the article.
Â I really love his summation so I think itâ€™s worthwhile to make sure you see it.
â€œMy sweeping, I'm hoping overly broad assessment: liberals, especially the pundit class, don't much care about dead foreigners. They're a political problem at best â€“ will the Afghan war derail Obama's re-election campaign? â€“ not a moral one. And liberals are more than willing to accept a few charred women and children in some country they'll never visit in exchange for increasing social welfare spending by 0.02 percent, or at least not cutting it by as much as a mean 'ol Rethuglican.â€
Youâ€™re never going to find a candidate with whom you agree on all issues, but every now and then one does emerge who shares your concerns, your convictions for sustaining liberty, and has a record of not compromising those values. Â That only happens rarely and when the candidate is his own man as Ron Paul has proven to be. That candidate will draw support from all liberty-loving people, no matter party affiliation.