I think it also means that if we are going to hold our collective noses, we have to decide if there is an advantage to electing a candidate whos domestic policies are sane, even if their foreign policies are less than desired. That’s the way I’m leaning anyway.
Think about it this way. All the issues people agree with Paul on, are Constitutionally Congress' role, not the Executive. The Executive's primary role is CIC of the Armed Forces and foreign policy. If you had to give a little (which we will have to do no matter what) do you give on something that is the primary duty or something that is a secondary duty? I frankly don't like any of the prospects, but because of the primary role of the President, I support Paul the least.
It's like choosing a doctor if you had to have heart surgery. Do you choose a doctor who you love his bedside manner and has great skill in cosmetic surgery, but not so much skill in heart medicine? Or would you rather have a doctor who can't do jack on cosmetic surgery and has crappy bedside manner, but is well versed in heart surgery?
Remember when weighing everyone to first take into account the Constitutional Role of the President.
I am really surprised all the people who support Paul for President, even though they disagree with him on foreign policy and the war. Those are the main duties of the President. If you like his attitude on spending, taxes, etc, then leave him in Congress- whose duty it is to originate all spending and tax bills.
Exactly. No one is going to take office and immediately change everything, nor are they going to change everything they said they would. Our government does have checks and balances and set procedures that prevent anything from happening too fast.