Why not Ron Paul as the Republican presidential candidate? I watched half of yesterday's debate and two things stood out to me. First, he is the least crazy of the lot of them. OK, I know that's not a high bar to jump. And it has been diaried here plenty that Paul has plenty of ideas that do not make him an appealing progressive candidate. But that's not what this diary is about. I don't want him as my candidate. I don't want him to be the president. I want him to help Democrats shape the political debate.
The reason is I want Ron Paul as the Republican candidate is that I think that he can help us change the debate in our country. All the other Republican candidates are going to be 9-11 all day all the time. Just look at them. With Rudi, for example, you get torture, bombing Iran, tossing prisoners in the black hole of Gitmo, secret renditions. Of the Republicans on stage yesterday, Paul alone at least had moments of reasonability.
Because it is hard getting traditional media attention on our side, why not shift the debate so they have to talk about our issues, important issues like getting out of Iraq, healthcare for everyone, rule of law reestablished, terrorism taken seriously, science taken seriously, education for our kids? Things Republicans do not care about nor want to debate. With Paul, we have a Republican candidate who quickly takes Iraq of the table, leaving us in a much better position frame the debate on other issues.
So I'm not saying I want Ron Paul to be the president. No, not at all. I am suggesting that we continue to talk to our relatives and coworkers and convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate. But realistically, there are some who will not vote for a Democrat. I think those people, many of whom are not pleased with W and Iraq, might vote for a Republican who supports getting out of Iraq. Why not encourage them to vote for Paul in the primary? Maybe that will at least move the debate closer to reality.