If citizens want to overlook the past; or maybe overlook is not a good word; but, forgive the past of an ambitious man that once elected did no harm and instead found a great deal of loyalty among his constituents using his methodology, how much do we forgive? Do we now consider him a leader enough to give his point of view brevity?
I believe there is a legitimate stand to take with Paul's former political rant and what his approach to his constituent and indeed a nation as a federal representative has been. He is one of the only candidates, if not the only candidate, I remember willingly and openly stated he is concerned about the huge discrepancy of incarceration and death penalties involved with the African American community in the USA. That is a huge statement. Is it redeeming? If it brings about a solid resolve to seek justice for our minorities it can be that redeeming.
Ron Paul is one of the steadfast candidates with a track record that has not varied. He has impressed me in his answers being founded in 'the law.' Not rhetoric. Not unrealistic social resolves, but, sincere law and government. His answer about contraceptives is rock solid. Rock solid is what the citizens of the USA are looking for and not simply rant after rant to win faux favor. Ron Paul does not play 'the carrot and stick' politics the others do. He makes his expertise known and lives with it.
The real danger in allowing redemption of a former bigoted dialogue is that others will see it as an opportunity to win favor and not sincerely be reformed. There is a real danger to allow the same to happen again. Is it realistic it will happen again? Will the American electorate allow the hatred, that status quo exist for existence sake rather than sincerely do 'the hard work' of destroying bigotry, racism and bias when it is inconvenient or the 'dollars' are working in the 'right' direction.
Ron Paul should carry brevity and if he is not to be President he needs to address his leadership after he leaves the House. I don't blame him for leaving the House, it has become silly and irrelevant. I would like to see him continue his dialogues and work for sincere justice in this country. I believe the model he brings to the debates should carry brevity as well.
Decisions to make and discussions to have. How do we stop the racism, the hatred, the phobias, the stigmatizing and sincerely have a country where people care about and for each other? He could be pivotal.
Paul exhibits the difference between a statesman and a politician. That is worth exploring if nothing else is. He never needed 'the job,' he chose it.
