Mitt Romney should be the next president

You made an analogy about the country being a business and that we needed a successful businessman to bail us out instead of a doctor who knows little about business. Ron Paul entered the political arena over twenty years ago due to his fascination with free-market Austrian economics and the parallels of our political system. Though Romney is a successful businessman, Ron Paul has a better understanding of economics than any other presidential candidate. In regards to the analogy made about not wanting to drastically change a sick person's environment when they are unstable, I say that sometimes the environment is what's making the person sick in the first place, so the only way to heal this person would be to remove them from the source of their ailment. I could also make the analogy that the US is like a sick patient, and you would want a doctor to properly diagnose the problem and prescribe a treatment to heal them, not a businessman. Not intend to deviate too far from the subject at hand by bringing up the war, but it is certainly relevant to the current economic crisis. In the last GOP debate in Boca Raton, FLA, every candidate except for Ron Paul stated that we made the right decision by invading Iraq and that we should maintain our presence, though an overwhelming majority of Americans want us out of there. In terms of business management, a good manager should be able to make the connections that A) we are sliding into recession, and that the cost of unnecessarily maintaining a foreign empire is bankrupting our country, B) if the vast majority of voters in a democratic election want us out of Iraq, then the only way the Republicans have a chance of winning the election is to pick a candidate who's against the war. Your statement "Our government has just as many ethics problems as most corporations. It comes down to a conflict of interest. Whats more important? Success and wealth, or doing the right thing. People make those decisions. Businesses make those decisions, and governments make those decisions. In that respect, this nation is, as i said earlier, a giant corporation; assessing risks and profitability, just like any other business" is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that you can't run a country like a business. Why do we have to make a compromise? The best way to achieve success is to do the right thing by adhering to the Constitution. Those who say that business and ethics do not have anything to do with one another and apply this mentality to politics are simply looking at the issue from a business stance. You made the statement that "In the economy's case, you pour strength into businesses. Find ways to increase production, to protect our businesses from foreign onslaught, and to create growth." I agree, but argue that Ron Paul's plan to eliminate the Federal Reserve return to the gold standard, and stop trying to maintain a foreign empire is the best way to do so. To the notion of returning to the gold standard and eliminating the Federal Reserve, you stated that "I do not necessarily disagree with changes he wants to make. I haven't really taken the time to study all of the facts regarding these changes, but I know enough about the consequences to understand the drastic changes that would occur." How can you claim to know enough about the consequences of a plan if you admittedly haven't taken the time to study all of the facts? I was skeptical of what Ron Paul was advocating until I did my homework and was able to see the argument from all sides, and was able to give it an analysis based on ALL of the facts. There are a lot of economists within the academic realm who support Paul's economics, some of which have endorsed Paul on his website. Jim Cramer from Mad Money has been saying the same thing about the Federal Reserve for a long time, and invites Ron Paul on his show from time to time to talk about it. Ron Paul is the only candidate without skeletons in his closet. He's got to where he's at by subscribing to constitutional governing principles and serving the people, not individual interests. He's the only candidate that will make our country safer by bringing our troops home from every country we're in, and will bail out our economy by doing so. Less $ for optimal security makes perfect sense to me.