In one word, entirely. Why do I think this? Look at the field of GOP candidates that are in the presidential field. All except Ron Paul seem to have changed their positions to suit the political environment that they are currently in. Mitt Romney – enough said. Newt Gingrich‘s demeanor does not befit someone that will be the leader of the free world, same goes to Michelle Bachmann with her incendiary comments. Maybe Perry in 4 years when he’s brushed up on how to act in the national limelight. Rick Santorum‘s foundation on just social issues is not exactly the separation of church-and-state that I see. Ron Paul seems to stick with what he thinks, what he knows, and basically everything is right. It’s very easy just to look at his basic pro/con positions and make up your mind; however, examining his thought process reveals a lot more than what the establishment pundits are spewing. A respected online news site, POLITICO, charges that if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, then that means their first-in-the-nation contests will be irrelevant (Driving-the-Day). Please…because they’re the first, we will always look at them and constantly see who they’re going to choose. And why are people afraid that Paul is going to win? Doesn’t that mean that he’s the choice of the people? Hmm???
Fine, Paul wins Iowa and it’s a big disaster. And if he wins New Hampshire, is it still a big disaster? Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor posits that if he did win those first two contests, then the criticism would be unfounded:
But what would happen if Paul wins Iowa – and wins the New Hampshire primary, too? Wouldn’t that flip this criticism on its head, and show that Paul is at least as representative of the GOP as, say, Michelle Bachmann and/or Gingrich? (What if Ron Paul wins Iowa – and New Hampshire too?)
If the GOP wants to be a party of the people, shouldn’t they elect the person with whom the people want?