Ron Paul for president

I urge the voters to not vote based upon whether they think Ron Paul should be president, but who argued their case better. Ron Paul is too IdeologicalIt is well known that Ron Paul is a committed Libertarian. And as a committed Libertarian, his commentary as a legislator and political figure adds to the political dialogue. However, ideologues tend to be better at founding countries than governing them. Since Ron Paul is so committed to an ideological stance, he would be unable to work with the Congress, and thus be an ineffectual leader. Presidents who tend to succeed are usually realistic and pragmatic, and not particularly adherent to parties or ideologies. When commenting on issues, Paul often begins "if we didn't have the FED", "if we didn't have an empire", thus stating a discontentedness for the current governmental structure of the US. Unfortunately for Paul, it is not the duty of the president to revolutionize the government, and denounce laws passed by congress. I admit, I do find Paul's ideas and books to be very interesting and thought provoking. The USA needs people like Paul on the floor of the House debating policy. But, the better presidents in US history, like Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Clinton were successful because their lack of ideological adherence, and thus allowed them to "work across the aisle" and take independent approaches to governance. FDR and Reagan (in my analysis) are really the only two great ideological presidents, and this was due to FDR's Democratic majorities in Congress during his first term, and Reagan's ability to compromise on principle. If Reagan were as stubborn as Paul, his presidency would have been a failure. On the other hand, the US has had countless presidents that, although intellectual, were ineffectual due to ideological adherence, such as Adams, Jefferson, Wilson, Carter, Bush. In my opinion, Paul would have a presidency much like Jefferson. Both are supremely intelligent, but like Jefferson, Paul would find difficulty turning his philosophical musings on the nature of government into policy that is palatable to two political parties. Paul would probably become reclusive and irrelevant once he realizes that corrupt Democrats and Republicans like "Big Government" and rely on pet projects to get reelected. Paul would be incapable of compromise (which he has shown throughout his political career) and very little of his platform would become effective law. Most Americans Do Not Support Ron PaulRon Paul is not a charismatic leader. He has good name recognition and the majority of the voting public knows who he is. Yet in spite of 3 presidential bids, over a dozen debates, and countless television appearances, only 10% of primary voters in Paul's own party support him. Being unpopular in the Republican party, and a joke in the Democratic party, even if every registered independent in the USA voted for Paul, he would still handedly lose. Americans have heard Paul's ideology, and many may even find him charming and good natured, the US has not taken to his ideology and there is little evidence that this will change. Paul seems more popular than he actually his because of the overwhelming activism of his small supporter base. Initial support is extremely important because a surplus of political capital determines what a president can initially enact. For example, the momentum Obama had after his election allowed him to pass his signature policy, the Affordable Healthcare Act. Whether you agree with the law or not, it is easy to see the connection between the Obama movement and his ability to pass health care reform. Political capital is extremely important to a president's success, and Paul's exclusive, instead of inclusive, ideological nature, would alienate the majority of citizens, and he would have very little capital to be effective. Rebuttals and Notes For now, these two arguments are sufficient to explain why Paul should not be president. I will no rebut Pro's arguments. -All current candidates for president are Christians so this does not strengthen his presidential bid-I agree, military experience and being a doctor are good qualifications -Being reelected 10 times to Congress only proves he is a career politician, which has not served America well recently- Every candidate wants to "change" our foreign policy. Change means nothing-While consistency is good, is not changing one's mind in 25 years really so great? A good leader often matures intellectually and changes views, or at least changes positions based on new developments. It shows a lack of stubborness to change a position, as Obama has on Gay marriage. It is brave to admit that somebody can be wrong. I am not so sure that never changing one's mind is really a good thing. -Every candidate wants limited government, and all say their policies are the most "constitutional"-Congress would not pass Paul's budget in 1 million years, regardless how "good" it is-He actually wants to decrease defense spendingFinal Thoughts Many Ron Paul supporters are naive to political reality. Ironically, their savior libertarian candidate, who would "protect" them from government, would only be effective as a dictator. When people talk about a Ron Paul presidency, and how he'd end the Federal Reserve, end the wars, cut "useless" government spending, and reform entitlements, they forgot that under their sacred constitution, this is not the job of the president, and not even possible from the president. He can only propose legislation, and veto legislation. In all of US House history, Paul is 2nd all time in solitary nay votes, with 33 [1]. This demonstrates that Paul is too ideologically pure to compromise and work with Congress, and in effect would actually reform government less than more moderate candidates. Ron Paul for Revolutionary? Yes. Ron Paul for dictator? Sure. Ron Paul for president? No way. [1] . http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...