Here goes an attempt to open the eyes of some of Ron Paul’s die hard supporters. I know it may be a futile effort but hey I’m in a mood today:

Something has been bugging me about Ron Paul lately and I think I’ve stumbled upon WHY I am so “anti-Paul” as labeled by a few emails I’ve got lately.

First let me explain something. I have tried to be fair and balanced with ALL candidates. I’ve tried to remain very civil in my posts and positive about all of them rather than bash them. I have issues with ALL of them to one degree or another. So without further ado let me ask these questions of Ron Paul’s supporters (Especially YOU “loveronpaul@gmail.com”)

1. Ron Paul has been in congress for over 30 years. He’s never moved up to the senate, he hasn’t gained any more “Sway” in the house than freshman who have just entered the chamber. He’s had many votes where he was among single digit objections to bills and for 30 years that pattern has remained the same. Where do you see “Leadership” potential in Ron Paul? A POTUS must lead, what examples of his leadership in congress are there to draw on?

2. Ron Paul has very hands off approach to foreign policy which is not necessarily a bad thing. However given the state of our world today, do you honestly believe that NO American influence will result in a more positive view of us from abroad? Outside of Iran as a target of war mongering, what should the USA do about helping other nations who are friendly to our nation or not friendly but a humanitarian crisis is occurring?

3.  Right now we have a government at a stand still. We wanted the runaway liberal congress stopped and we accomplished that in 2010.  With a Ron Paul POTUS how do you think the congress would be received? Many of the spending bills that must be passed do not fall under Ron Paul’s vision and as such he votes against most of them. Would he veto them? And if he wielded that veto pen as often as he suggests he would, what exactly would get done with a Ron Paul Presidency? And what if he was elected to lead a divided congress?.

4. An experiment in Ron Paul’s “Constitutional” absolutism would be the minute pictures of dead babies/women/children in a foreign land started being shown on TV screens across our land. Would Ron Paul be able to maintain his absolutionist, isolation, hands off other nations problems views when he had the power to stop it?

5. Ron Paul stated to a question asked by Meghan Kelly that all SCOTUS Judges were “All bad and All good”… So what should us non-Paulies take from that answer? Where would he tilt the court if he were to nominate 2 judges? IF all of them are equally bad and good, how would he improve that if he had the power to do so?

6. Ron Paul is POTUS and the day he takes office Iran, Syria and Egypt all attack Israel. Israel handles it themselves as Ron says they should. The middle east explodes into war for a solid month. Stock market collapses, oil shoots up to record highs, Israel Nukes Iran the war ends but NO oil is leaving the middle east because lanes of travel are closed. Paul says open up drilling here to create jobs and decrease our dependency on Middle east oil. BUT, the environmentalists, progressive democrats in several oil producing states take the feds to court (Granted by constitutional challenge of the feds by the states) How does a Ron Paul handle the chaos of the 79 gas crisis coupled with a nation of lawyers with opposing views of the constitution? And how long do you think Ron Paul would last under that kind of pressure?

The reason I ask these questions is Ron Paul has done nothing but complain about how things were done, ask WHY we are doing what we are doing and say he wouldn’t have done whatever was done. He has not had to make a decision with peoples lives to this date. He has only had to vote on something along with the rest or vote against it. That always gives him company in his vote. IF he’s elected POTUS the decisions he makes are HIS alone.

This is why I think a governor or at the very least a senator or leader of one or the other is the only folks that should even be considered POTUS.  They have had to make decisions on their own with their name on it. They have had to look people in the eyes after a decision has been made and make a case for it. Paul and Bachmann have not had to do that.

So let the emails (For cowards) begin or feel free to drop the answers in the comment section for those of you with a set of nuts who aren’t nuts.