I was reading an online article from the Nashua Telegraph about Ron Paul that really stressed the key difference between Ron and most of the other candidates running in both parties. The article found here lists fact after fact and supports why he wants to do some of the things he wants to do. This is an uncommon trait when it comes to coverage of political candidates as most of the time all they put out is opinion after opinion not based on any real evidence or attack after attack. Just take a look over at the democrats and you'll see that currently as the case, Hillary is attacking Bush and the rest of the party is attacking Hillary. And most Republicans are no better in that instead of actually talking about the issues they are simply arguing that they could be the one to beat the Hillary machine. A candidate with solid views such as Ron Paul could beat her as his stances would shine next to her empty statements exposing them even more for what they are.
Let's take a close look instead at some of the points raised in the article.
"They say I'm anti-military, but who has the most contributors of any candidate, Democrat or Republican, from our fighting men and women? I do," said Paul, an Air Force surgeon during the Vietnam War era.
Regarding our approach to the Middle East he says the following:
"We either subsidize people or we bomb them. Why not try another option?" Paul asked. "We shouldn't get hysterical that in 10 years or more they might have a nuclear weapon."
And what is interesting is his approach to handling terrorists. Instead of continuing attacking entire nations and other failed policies that have less then positive results he's considering a rather novel idea of doing the same thing our Founding Fathers have done which has proven to work, "empower private individuals to bring pirates to justice using legal means."
And don't buy into Democrats that they would do things any differently then Republicans. Hillary is already saying it would be years before we'd leave Iraq and most of the other Republicans call for plans not much different. Bill Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq during his attacks in 1998 then we did in the entire first gulf war and it is his policy put in place that authorized the US to remove Saddam from power. Of course only Republicans are credited for the mess in Iraq. Truth is both sides have equal share to the blame.
Ron also goes on to build solid arguments to support many of his other stances. A rarity when it comes to politicians. Most simply argue to spend more and more, not questioning if the program even works in the first place. Case in point:
And Paul said the practice of printing more money has made the U.S. a record debtor nation, and he would reinstitute gold and silver as alternatives to paper currency.
"History shows that paper never lasts. It ends terribly," Paul said.
This was an argument I made a while back in an article I wrote pointing out the truth about the Federal Reserve system being nothing but a group of private banks which we as a nation pay to print money for us which in turn has nothing backing it. How long can a system which amounts to nothing more then using leaves as currency really last? Yet Ron is the ONLY candidate I'm aware of that is even trying to address this issue.
This just goes to show why Ron continues to set himself apart from the pack and explains why he is setting records for campaign contribution even when others get piles of special interest money hand over fist.