Ron Paul is the best candidate for President in 2008

Admittedly, I was sort of looking forward to running into a Neo-conservative opponent who I could beat over the head about foreign policy and true fiscal conservatism. Instead, you seem to be more of a moderate, and I must admit that I do not agree with Dr. Paul on ALL of his points, that is, I believe that an utterly laissez fair capitalist society has its drawbacks, a few of which you pointed out. For instance, if any and all government intervention in the economy with respect to the quality of goods, human rights, etc, would most likely lead to the sort of state America enjoyed (or at least the big tycoons did), around the turn of the century. However, I absolutely agree with Paul that the government interferes far too much with the free market, and in the process has actually facilitated a number of things it intended to stop. It is from this point that I must refute the notion of Socialized Medicine, or Universal Health Care. While I greatly respect Denis Kucinich, and realize that he and Paul both have a similar understanding of foreign policy, I whole-heartedly disagree with the notion that Universal Healthcare is the solution to the current crisis. The problem is really twofold. First and most evident, I feel, is that the high prices are actually driven by government intervention into Health Care with the whole idea of 'managed care.' All this has done is hinder true free market capitalism, and channel the power and authority over health decisions away from doctors and their patients to big, subsidized insurance companies. If the government would get out of the way, true competition would naturally result prices being driven down, and a very American concept of choice in health care. While Universal Health Care might very well be better than the current state of managed care, it has a number of drawbacks, first and foremost being that it strips the authority away from the individual and places it in the hands of the central government. I do not think the founders had anything like that in mind. Despite its problems, the current state of health care has one prime advantage over its socialized counterparts in the Old World: The lowest waiting time to see a doctor and by far the best specialists. I am an avid follower of European football, and I know that quite frequently, footballers in need of special surgery come to America. I, for one, refuse to give up my freedom of choice and pay higher taxes so that my health plan can be decided by a bunch of bureaucrats. That is NOT, what we need. The free market can and will work if it is only truly allowed to. Indeed, prices for healthcare have only skyrocketed since the government stuck it's nose into the business. The second part of the problem, which I feel only Paul does an adequate job of expressing, is the effect runaway inflation of the dollar has had on the cost of health care, amongst other things. None of the other candidates has as excellent a grip on economics as Ron Paul, not even Kucinich, and he is the only one who realizes that the cost of maintaining our empire and printing and printing all this money to try and meet it has driven prices up. Moving on to foreign policy, I take issue with your point about Paul's isolationist policies. Ron Paul is not by any means an 'isolationist'. Isolationism entails a complete lack of regard for the outside world, coupled with high protective tariffs and the lot. Just because Paul is a NON INTERVENTIONIST, does not mean he is an isolationist, as there is a clear difference between the two. While rallying against foreign intervention and foreign aid, Paul absolutely endorses trading and speaking with other nations diplomatically. Watch some of his debate clips, thats almost a direct quote. Originally, my biggest concern with Paul's stances on the issues was the one revolving around Energy and drilling in North America. As you pointed out, he did vote to allow drilling in the Wildlife Reserve in Alaska. I'm a bit of a conservationist myself, who hates to see more and more precious woodlands and farmlands being gobbled up by greedy developers with their ugly two toned houses here in the suburbs of Philadelphia, but upon further research into his positions, I realized that Paul actually has it right. I do not feel that it is really necessary for the federal government to become overly involved with regulating drilling, pollution, etc, and not just because it does not have the constitutional authority to do so, but because it does not really have to. If we simply strictly observe property rights, polluters can be hit very hard, as they have to pollute somewhere, and chances are it will affect someone's personal property in a negative manner, right? Also, it is not the duty or the right of the federal government to mandate that auto makers produce their cars to a certain standard of fuel efficiency. It should be up to the American people to stop purchasing gas guzzling SUV's and drive more efficient compact cars (as i do). We do not need the government to hold our hand...if the people simply wake up and remove the demand for SUV's and big trucks the companies will no longer produce them. As for drilling in North America, if we really want to achieve energy independence, it is currently sadly necessary. Face it. We are not very close to achieving reliance on a viable means of alternative energy, so in the time being, if we want to successfully distance ourselves from the temptation of an interventionist foreign policy centering around the protection of oil reserves abroad, the most logical solution is frankly to drill for some here...and there are vast quantities of oil, but nearly 80% is illegal to drill for. Let the free market work, which also entails the cessation of subsidies to the Big Oil companies. I find it odd that he voted for that once, btw, but I take him at his word now that he wishes to discontinue that funding. To speak in more general terms, I believe that despite the concerns you raised, Paul's positives outweigh them, even when stacked against Kucinich, who, while respectful of the Constitution, Civil Liberties, and understanding of foreign policy, is, after all a Democrat. I'm not saying that there is something wrong with Democrats, indeed I generally prefer them to neo con Republicans, but Kucinich's proposal for Universal Health Care entails a necessary hike in both taxes and government spending, neither of which we need. Taxes should be cut, as Paul believes, dramatically and for all socio-economic classes, and, after all, should not the earner of a dollar be the prime decider of what to do with it? If taxes were curtailed enough, would not private health care be made more affordable? Coupled with a return to the gold standard, government withdrawal from managed care which hinders the free market, lower taxes would solve the health care problem. Oh, and I nearly forgot about the UN. Paul is correct in saying that the UN undermines American sovereignty, as well as that of all the nations who are members. Decisions that effect the American people must not be left to an unelected world body, no matter how well intended the body is in nature. All too often, the prime purpose of the UN is to intervene, meddle, and sanction, all of which have negative backlash. I feel genuinely sorry that slavery still exists, but what on earth can we do about it? It is for the people of Sudan to resolve, not America or the UN. Besides, withdrawal form the UN merely entails a withdrawal from a formalized diplomatic body, not a cessation of diplomacy with other nations. We'd just have more control over it.