A Message to Rich Democrats

If, after giving as much money as you legally can to the Democratic candidate(s) of your choice, you still have more you're able to give, then you should strongly consider giving it to Ron Paul. No, Paul does not stand a reasonable chance of winning the Republican nomination; however, as Howard pointed out in his last post, Paul serves an important function nonetheless. The longer Paul is able to afford to stand up and rail against thoughtlessly pro-war, pro-torture candidates such as Giuliani, the more voters will become aware of Giuliani's many troubling positions on important national issues. Unfortunately, it is true that a hardcore base of Republican voters fully support Giuliani's stance on torture; however, a great many independent and moderate voters do not. The earlier such voters see Giuliani for the borderline authoritarian that he is, the better. Right now Ron Paul is in the best position to do just that--he just needs the additional exposure that better funding would allow him.

Republicans should celebrate Ron Paul, not denounce him

When Ron Paul had the gall to suggest that American occupation in the Middle East is a factor in fueling terrorism, the Reagan Conservatives reacted typically: If you're not going to tout the GOP position in the War on Terror, just go away. That's funny, considering that Sean Hannity and people of his ilk will always espouse their undying support of the First Amendment when their views are criticized.

Once Rep. Paul proclaimed his position on foreign policy, it was no surprise that Rudy Giuliani was all too happy to immediately denounce this "falsehood." Giuliani embodies the "don't rock the boat" candidate that will eventually threaten the Republican's chances in 2008. The fact that all the other candidates are still supporting George Bush's greatest failure (I know, that's bold) should scare the hell out of their would-be voters. If they were really thinking, they would embrace Paul's dead-on take instead of denouncing him as their version of Dennis Kucinich.

This is not to say that Ron Paul's pre-World War II isolationist foreign policy isn't outdated, because it most certainly is. America needs to retain diplomatic ties with the rest of the world and maintain its role in the UN. Globalism is eventual, meaning that an internationalist approach to foreign policy is the only sensible option. However, the current Administration is taking this idea and adding their own unilateral bullying of other nations, instead of listening to the concerns of the rest of the world. As Americans become more aware of worldwide criticism of the government's bullying overseas, it would seem the Republicans would rethink their strategy and move as far away from Bush as possible in this area. Too bad for the Republican voters that none of their candidates save for Paul will actually go out on a limb and break with the current GOP philosophy. For this reason, the punditry and anyone else that cares should embrace Ron Paul's idea, not label his position as extreme.

HC