Official Just Another Capitalist Endorsement

EDIT (and spoiler): Pay no attention to the picture that shows up on Facebook. It's not who I picked. Sorry for the confusion...well, it would only be confusing if you were lazy, just looked at the picture, and didn't actually read the blog I slaved over for hours. So, on second thought, screw your confusion.

Two days ago I told you the wait was over because I'd determined who I would be supporting for the Republican Presidential nomination. Then I said you actually had to wait a little longer.

Well, now the wait is over. For realsies, bitches.

And the winner is...

Ron Paul

It literally hurts me to type this. My fingers are cramping as we speak, and I can hear my anarchist hippy friend (you know who you are) who's been preaching Paul to me since we deployed together almost five years ago cackling in the background.

So why Ron Paul? It isn't his good looks, I can assure you. Mitt Romney looks like the actor they always cast to play the President in movies where he's being skyjacked and has to tear off his shirt and slay terrorists with his bare hands.

Shooting terrorists with his laser beam eyes

Here's where Paul stands on a variety of issues. My primary sources are Ontheissues.org and votesmart.org. I am also advised by Fluffy, my imaginary monkey.

Abortion: Paul has demonstrated, through voting and statements, a consistent commitment to opposing abortion. He has said that abortion should be a state level choice, which I don't necessarily agree with; if abortion is murder, it interferes with one of the basic rights of humanity, and should not be allowed anywhere. Still, if going state by state is the way to get things done, then so be it.

Romney also claims to be pro-life, though his history is more rocky on the subject. He was pro-choice originally, but changed his mind after a visit to a lab that performed human cloning. He realized what abortion has done to devalue human life, and changed his position. In this subject I don't fault Romney too much for flipping the one time. People grow, learn, and change opinions. At the same time, Romney does not appear to be willing to take much action to change the status quo.

Taxes: There's a website called The Tax Foundation that rated the various candidates based on their tax plans. Their basis for rating is pretty much in line with what I'd use; namely, a ideal tax code would be simple, fund the essential workings of the government and nothing else, interfere with the economy to the lowest extent possible, etc. Read their website for more details.

Paul's plan gets a B-. He supports a large cut in the corporate tax rate, which might possibly get us from our current spot of 2nd highest corporate taxes in the world. He also wishes to exempt capital gains and estates from taxes. Big win.

Romney's plan, C-. He also supports a cut in the corporate tax rate, but a much smaller one. He also supports adding more arbitrary deductions and exemptions, which does nothing but muddy the waters.

Budget, spending, and economy: Here both candidates talk a good game. Both oppose bailouts, seem to support letting good companies succeed and bad companies fail, on their own. Paul voted against every stimulus package, while Romney at least verbally opposes them, though he supports the Wall Street bailout:

"Subsidizing failure doesn't stop failure--it merely prolongs the final act.

But Secretary Paulson's proposal was not aimed at saving sick Wall Street banks or even at preserving jobs on Wall Street. It was intended to prevent a run on virtually every bank and financial institution in the country. It did in fact keep our economy from total meltdown."

In addition, Romney has actually run businesses which are both legal and profitable.

Ron Paul supporting Big Oil profits (brave man) while opposing handing them money:

"I don’t think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they’re legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don’t think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn."

The big separation is the amount of spending cutbacks that Paul wishes to implement. Paul has spoken out against big government spending again and again, for years on end. Romney has not, not nearly to the same level.

Big Government: Here, Paul pulls way in the lead. He pretty much had me at hello:

Q: If you're elected president how do you plan to restore the 10th amendment, hold the federal government only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution and allow states to govern themselves?

PAUL: Well obviously, it would take more than one individual, but the responsibility of the president would be to veto every single bill that violates the 10th amendment. That would be the solution.

Yeah, baby. I like that...tell me more about my favorite amendment. [swoon]

Foreign Policy: And here we come to the man behind the curtain. Paul's foreign policy is...well...it's...interesting...Can we go back to the 10th amendment part?

Ok, it sucks. I can't stand it. He supports an entirely isolationist, non-intervention agenda, to an extreme I cannot get behind. He has made many statements saying that part of the problem is the maintenance of our "empire", and that we should "mind our own business".

While I agree we do not need to intervene in every instance, the fact of the matter is this is a global nation we live in, with global enemies. If we do not step up on the world stage, someone else will. We would leave a power vacuum that our Asiatic foes would be more than happy to fill. In today's world our enemies don't need to set one toe on American soil to harm American interests (See Strait of Hormuz).

That being said, I do have faith that if an enemy reared it's ugly head, Paul would have no trouble smiting it from his shoulders. (Article about the typical stance of Paul's supporters in the military: Rubble doesn't cause trouble)

Final note, Paul has a much wider base of support, particularly with the nation's youth, than is typical for any Presidential candidate, especially one as old as Paul. It is extremely difficult for any candidate to fight back up the age jump; once a President has been elected from the next generation, it is nigh on impossible for one of the previous generation to seize the reins again. Paul's younger crowd support will be invaluable there.

So, we can stop all these silly debates and whatnot now that I've decided the issue.