There is one line the GOP presidential candidates often repeat during their debates, and it goes like this: Anyone on this stage would be a better president than the current occupant of the Oval Office. That sounds good, except it isn’t actually true. And the reason is because a fellow by the name of Ron Paul is among those on the stage.
No one who has read what I’ve written about Barack Obama during the last two-and-three-quarter years can come away with anything except the impression that I’m a strong, and at times even a fierce, critic of his. But whatever my disagreements with Obama, even he is preferable to Ron Paul. The first duty of a president, after all, is commander-in-chief. It is in the area of foreign policy and national security that he exercises disproportionate influence. And it is in that arena where Ron Paul is particularly reckless, particularly irresponsible, and (if he were ever to possess any real power and influence) particularly dangerous.
There is plenty of room for differences within conservatism. But Ron Paul’s views, on the substance, are indefensible, at least for a conservative.
Barack Obama is a terrible president. But Ron Paul would be worse.