Ron Paul’s Presidential Judgment
Much of the media focus in the 2008 US presidential election is on fundraising, poll results, and occasionally, where the candidates stand on the issues. Rarely covered is the idea of what are the most important qualifications for the presidency, and which candidates are the best qualified.
Without question, the most important qualification for the presidency is sound judgment. When the nation is divided on questions from war or peace to security or liberty, the President is the one who must weigh the facts, benefits, and costs of each issue, and make the final decision. A quick review of Ron Paul's record shows that his judgment has been consistently superior to that of his fellow presidential contenders, and that Americans could rely on his continued sound judgment if he should win the election.
Unlike some of the other candidates in the presidential race, Ron Paul was not fooled by trumped-up intelligence reports into voting to authorize the Iraq war. He showed sound judgment in evaluating the facts at hand, and the likely outcomes of the war.
Recent news reports confirm that Ron Paul was correct in his analysis, and that our military focus on Iraq has done little to prevent Al Qaeda from re-emerging as threat to our national security, and has in fact helped in recruiting more terrorists because of our military intervention:
Ron Paul was right about both the outcome of the war and the political consequences of supporting it. Shouldn't Americans give his predictions concerning what might happen when US forces are removed more credit than the predictions of those who forecast an easy victory?
Ron Paul gains most of his attention for his stance on the war, foreign policy, and civil liberties, but his judgment in the economic arena has been equally sound. He predicted the current housing bubble long before most economists, let alone presidential contenders:
When President Bush pushed through the prescription drug plan, Ron Paul rose in defense of limited government, and accurately predicted what would result:
Why has Ron Paul's judgment proven so reliable over the years? The obvious response is that his natural intelligence and his broad knowledge on a range of topics from health care to history to economics allows him to more accurately judge the likely results of a given policy proposal. An equally important reason is that his judgment is not influenced by special interests, whether they be pharmaceutical lobbies, defense contractors, oil companies, or the lending industry. Since Ron Paul is in Congress to defend the interests of the American people while respecting the constitutional limits on his office, his decisions are inherently superior to those of politicians who pursue the largest campaign donations from the biggest corporate interests.
When making your decision about which candidate to support in the 2008 US presidential election, why not focus on what is most important in a President -- sound judgment and the ability to make the right decisions? Why not support the candidate with a proven track record of exceptional judgment on issue after issue? Why not support Ron Paul?
Read more at Paul 4 Prez
Without question, the most important qualification for the presidency is sound judgment. When the nation is divided on questions from war or peace to security or liberty, the President is the one who must weigh the facts, benefits, and costs of each issue, and make the final decision. A quick review of Ron Paul's record shows that his judgment has been consistently superior to that of his fellow presidential contenders, and that Americans could rely on his continued sound judgment if he should win the election.
Unlike some of the other candidates in the presidential race, Ron Paul was not fooled by trumped-up intelligence reports into voting to authorize the Iraq war. He showed sound judgment in evaluating the facts at hand, and the likely outcomes of the war.
I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with.... There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict. War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do. (9/4/02)
Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted? (9/10/02)
Recent news reports confirm that Ron Paul was correct in his analysis, and that our military focus on Iraq has done little to prevent Al Qaeda from re-emerging as threat to our national security, and has in fact helped in recruiting more terrorists because of our military intervention:
A new threat assessment from U.S. counter terrorism analysts suggests that the global network of al-Qaida, that launched the most destructive terror attack on U.S. soil, has been able to regroup... Findings of the study titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" reveals that the terrorist group has used its safe sanctuary along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the 9/11 attack.
Ron Paul was right about both the outcome of the war and the political consequences of supporting it. Shouldn't Americans give his predictions concerning what might happen when US forces are removed more credit than the predictions of those who forecast an easy victory?
Ron Paul gains most of his attention for his stance on the war, foreign policy, and civil liberties, but his judgment in the economic arena has been equally sound. He predicted the current housing bubble long before most economists, let alone presidential contenders:
However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. (7/16/02)
When President Bush pushed through the prescription drug plan, Ron Paul rose in defense of limited government, and accurately predicted what would result:
All of us, including seniors, will pay for the drug benefit in the form of higher taxes. Congress claims the program will cost $400 billion over the next 10 years, but government cost projections cannot be trusted. Medicare today costs seven times more than originally estimated.... Under both the House and Senate proposals, however, millions of American seniors will end up paying more out-of-pocket for drugs than they do now, while having worse coverage. (10/6/03)
Why has Ron Paul's judgment proven so reliable over the years? The obvious response is that his natural intelligence and his broad knowledge on a range of topics from health care to history to economics allows him to more accurately judge the likely results of a given policy proposal. An equally important reason is that his judgment is not influenced by special interests, whether they be pharmaceutical lobbies, defense contractors, oil companies, or the lending industry. Since Ron Paul is in Congress to defend the interests of the American people while respecting the constitutional limits on his office, his decisions are inherently superior to those of politicians who pursue the largest campaign donations from the biggest corporate interests.
When making your decision about which candidate to support in the 2008 US presidential election, why not focus on what is most important in a President -- sound judgment and the ability to make the right decisions? Why not support the candidate with a proven track record of exceptional judgment on issue after issue? Why not support Ron Paul?
