The big thing is foreign policy. I just wrote a long FReepmail about the topic, and I should have saved some of what I wrote. I understand Dr. Paul's perspective, but I disagree. I don't believe that we'll have peace with the Muslim world until we break the jihadists just as we had to break imperial Japan in the 40's. This issue is huge to me.
There are a couple of other things. I'll try to repeat the top three.
First, the presidency is an executive office, and executive experience can be telling in whether someone is effective. I think Ed Koch once said that you don't have to agree 100%. If you agree 80%, you should be able to support him. However, that measure ignores effectiveness. What if I agree with one candidate 80% but believe that he will be only 25% effective? He will give me only 20% of what I want. (25% of 80% is 20%.) What if I agree with another candidate 70% but see him as 50% effective. He will give me 35% of what I want. We can argue about effectiveness and how much I really agree with a candidate, but I believe that Mitt Romney will be exceptionally effective.
A second issue is that House members don't have the same experience representing a diverse geographic area in the same way that senators and governors do. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for a House district to be all that diverse. They never intended for parties to arise, so they would have seen the members of a House district as having fairly similar outlooks on the issues. A House member would have been seen as someone who could represent those fairly uniform desires. A senator represents an entire state which often has many areas with different interests. Likewise, a governor must administer the laws of a state again with many different areas where there would be different needs and desires. If all other things are equal, I'd prefer a governor or senator over a House member. I originally supported Duncan Hunter because I didn't see all other things as equal, but even then, I admitted that his lack of experience representing more than just a district was a weakness.
A third issue is age. Ron Paul is nearly 72. He's a healthy 72, but he's 72. I'm not saying that he can't win the votes of young people. From what I saw tonight, he had the most support in the college age bracket. Young people don't mind voting for an old guy, but that's because they see themselves as immortal and therefore might not realize that 72 could be pretty old. Middle-aged and older voters will have more problems with a 72-year-old candidate because we see aging as a bigger issue.
On the day that the previous picture was taken back in the summer of 2000, I was at a birthday party fundraiser for Dr. Paul. I had felt alienated at many Republican gatherings because the party was full of talk about "compassionate conservatism." As I stood in that room listening to Dr. Paul speak, I felt for the first time in a long time that I belonged in the GOP. He was my favorite politician until September 11, 2001.
I like Dr. Paul's approach on many things. I've even agreed that we've been wrong to become involved in some foreign affairs. However, I can't get over the disagreement about the most current conflict. Without that disagreement, maybe I'd be supporting him today.
Bill
~”However, that measure ignores effectiveness. What if I agree with one candidate 80% but believe that he will be only 25% effective? He will give me only 20% of what I want. (25% of 80% is 20%.) What if I agree with another candidate 70% but see him as 50% effective. He will give me 35% of what I want.”~
On the pessimistic side, the less effective candidate will only give you 5% of what you don’t want, while the more effective will give you 15% of what you don’t want.
Very thoughtful response, Bill.
I respect your viewpoint completely. I won’t enumerate all of my reasoning on foreign policy, just as you didn’t, but it’s his fiscal and social policies I find most attractive.
Thanks for the reply.
bttt