The Importance of a Presidential Election

A few days ago, I wrote about how important the 2012 congressional elections were going to be. At the time, I postulated that winning enough seats to expand conservative control of the House and to gain control of the Senate could go a long way towards shaping the direction the President would take his administration, be it Democrat or Republican. In my first post on Political Watchdog, I would like to take that theory a bit further and examine the importance of a presidential election. How will the outcome of the election shape the direction our country for the next four years?

I’ll be the first to admit, I liked President George W. Bush. He was obviously faced with a set of very bad circumstances while trying to lead our country, starting with the attacks on 9/11. Some things he did right, namely trying to rally the citizens of America to face the newly found threat of Islamic terrorism on our own shores. Some things he did wrong, namely abandoning free market principles to save the free market. We can all see how that worked out. The economy went into a nosedive and the resulting fallout helped sweep Barack Obama into the White House.

During the campaign in 2008, I heard and read a lot of comments that sounded very similar. They were along the lines of “maybe it’s a good thing to have a Democrat in the White House. After all, how much damage can one man do in four years”. Many of us tried to warn our readers about the danger we saw in Barack Obama. We were told we were racist, bigoted, you name the adjective. Even pointing out his complete lack of experience (unless you count community organizer) failed to dissuade voters. Looking back at the last three years, even we couldn’t have dreamed Barack Obama would take us as far down the road towards destroying our country as he has.

Actually, the path our current President has traveled has been blazed well before his time. For many years, we have seen a gradual shift of power and influence away from the states and a constitutionally limited federal government and toward a federal government that is all encompassing in it’s power and influence. It seems we have a department and a bureaucracy for everything under the sun and President Obama has no qualms about adding to the list. So, to those who said four years wouldn’t matter, I point you to the evidence, should you choose to see what is right in front of your face, of how wrong you were. To those who would say another fours will not make a difference, I would advise this. If Barack Obama has moved us so far and so fast down this path, how quickly do you think he will move in his second term, when he doesn’t have to worry about reelection?

In my heart of hearts, this is why I believe it is so important that we elect the right man for President in 2012. I fear our country can not withstand another four years of Barack Obama. Following that same line of thought, I fear our country can not withstand another four years of anyone who may very well steer our country down the same path, albeit more slowly. Combined with the fact that our country has already been on this path for years, that is why I believe it is important for us to elect a President who will not only put the brakes on the train, but also put it in reverse and go 180° in the other direction. That person would be none other than Ron Paul.

I didn’t used to think this way. I questioned some of his positions, especially on foreign policy. In recent weeks, I have been reexamining my opposition to those positions and I can only conclude that I have been wrong. If there is one thing you can depend on, it is this. Ron Paul stands by his convictions. Looking at his past, it can not be argued otherwise. As a way of explanation, I want to quote one blogger’s opinion of Ron Paul. This comes from theCL, who writes at The Classic Liberal.

Just a thought on Ron Paul and foreign policy … If Paul has proven anything to the American people over the years, he’s proven that he doesn’t budge on his convictions and beliefs. Compromise, to Paul, doesn’t mean giving in and accepting something else. He’s from the old school, where compromise means that you may not get everything you want, but you still move forward toward your goal. In other words, in compromise you get something.

While his methods may be different than what we’re used to, it should be obvious that he’d be the most hard-nosed negotiator with foreign leaders we’ve witnessed in our lifetimes. Paul has never been known to waiver. For example, even though he opposed attacking Iraq, he defended Bush’s stance that he didn’t need approval from the UN.

Add to the fact he doesn’t like the UN, the globalists, and all the other world collectivist nonsense, and you’ve got one serious president who puts America first.

I can not stress how much I agree with those statements. They mainly concern foreign policy, but I believe they would hold true in Ron Paul’s dealings with domestic policy as well. Because of his unwavering stance and insisting our country needs to actually follow the Constitution, and because of his vast knowledge of economics, we need him in the White House.

I have no intention of throwing stones at the other candidates who are vying for the Republican nomination for President. No doubt they are good men and women and no doubt, some of them want to change our country for the better. However, can we honestly say they have the qualifications to reverse the path we are on, or a plan to implement that reversal? Some of them are more conservative than others, but do they actually have the backbone to stand up and do what is right for America? Ron Paul does.

Ask yourself this question. Picture in your mind how different our country would be after four years of President Ron Paul. He may not have the style of some of the other candidates, or of President Obama, but he outshines them all with his substance. It is with that substance that he would dare to make a difference. That is why the presidential election of 2012 is so important.