a little debate analyzing

I watched the latter half of the Republican debate the other night. It was frustrating ... so I'm back to drumming the Ron Paul drum :)

Ron Paul was the only candidate who mentioned adherence to the Constitution. In fact, I think he was the only one who even mentioned the Constitution! The other three {Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum} were much more "political" -- in the bad sense -- and seeming to base their decisions on what will please the most voters rather than on what the Constitution has to say about a given matter. For example, when the education question was posed, the other three appeared to be spinning their wheels ... just trying to say what they hope people want to hear. Paul, on the other hand, merely answered in a straight forward answer with whatever is actual and true ... leaving little room for confusion.

Ron Paul was the only candidate who gave detailed facts or information to consider concerning Iran's nuclear weapon that isn't confirmed. He mentioned that during The Cold War ... the Soviet Union had 30,000 nuclear weapons ... and we avoided war through talking it out. Furthermore, those 30,000 nuclear weapons weren't tagged and we don't even know where they all are now. That might be a cause for concern, no??? Now compare this to Iran. We haven't confirmed that they even have one ... yet. The keyword, I guess, is yet. Everyone is worried about this one weapon ... which might not be ... yet. In addition, Paul mentioned that we have FORTY-FIVE MILITARY BASES surrounding the smallish country of Iran ... so in a very real sense ... we are already keeping tabs on the situation. Is it possible that our government wants us to believe there already is a major threat so that we will comply with certain things??? It seems like the other three want to paint it in the worst possible scenario -- and provide us with little factual information -- in order to gain votes. Each of these other three men tell us to fear not ... they will take care of the Iran problem ... and if elected, they will keep us safe ...

Ron Paul was the only one of the four candidates who has served in the military. The other three have NOT ... and I'm just guessing ... but they probably wouldn't want to send their sons off to war. Don't you think that would have been a good requirement for those that wish to hold this highest office in our land??? That those who would have the ability to declare war would have experienced it firsthand??? Until one has actually tasted the wretchedness of war ... one can only pretend to comprehend its ugliness. So it's no surprise that ... "this year {2011}, Paul has 10 times the individual donations from the military as does Mitt Romney. And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich."

Finally, Ron Paul is the only one who answered the last question. The question was ... what's the biggest misunderstanding people have about you. Paul replied that people (in a general sense, of course) think he cannot win -- BECAUSE that is what the media is telling the sheeple ... er ... people. The other three chose not to answer the question -- I know Santorum might have started to answer ... but then he veered off. Instead they chose to be political ... and promote themselves some more. It seems the other three will say almost anything in order to get elected.

For example, "Romney claimed, in November, that President Obama’s decision to bring home all American troops from Iraq was premature and represented “an astonishing failure.” True to his trademark elasticity, Romney has now changed his mind and is fine with bringing the troops home. Perhaps he’s been reading the polls that show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans think the Iraq war was not worth the loss of lives and treasury."

Granted, one of the other three might be more polished than Paul ... or more charismatic ... or what-have-you ... but we need to look beyond these distractions and zero in on what is absolutely essential. What might that be??? Truthfulness, humility, transparency, constitutionality, not-pragmatic, trustworthy, and unwavering.

Unlike some ... Ron Paul doesn't appear to be seeking the prestige ... or the power ... or the fancy white house. No ... in his case ... the presidency is more like a necessary burden he hopes to carry in order to help direct our country back on a better course. Ron Paul genuinely loves our country and wants to shoulder the burden ... everyone else just seems hungry for the title ...

Both quotes taken from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/