Presidential Handicapping - Libertarian Republicans

I have been reviewing the potential Republican candidate for President of late. An angry and anonymous commenter took me to task for ignoring Ron Paul. Further, fellow SLOB, Dueling Barstools, has been supporting Gary Johnon, former governor of New Mexico. I am not enamored of either candidate, but I agree with their positions more closely than any of the other candidates. My reasons are partly due to style and partly due to some heartfelt differences over policy.

Ron Paul is on his third run for President. It is not widely remembered that he was the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988. (On a local note, it is interesting that long time San Diego taxpayer hero, Richard Rider is leaving the LP to register as a Republican.) It is important for the political health of the country that there be a strong libertarian wing in the Republican party, and Ron Paul is certainly the acknowledge leader of that wing. Looking over his positions there is little with which I disagree. A small sample:

• Taxes: [Paul] supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.
• Free Trade: [Paul] is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”
• Border Security: A nation without borders is no nation at all. . . . We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
• Health Care: There is only one solution that will lead to true health and true freedom: making health care more affordable. Ron Paul believes that only true free market competition will put pressure on the providers and force them to lower their costs to remain in business. Additionally, Ron Paul wants to change the tax code to allow individual Americans to fully deduct all health care costs from their taxes.
  

However, I am troubled by two issues. First, with respect to the recent killing of Osama bin Laden, Ron Paul said that he wouldn't have given the order to do so. This is a big deal to most Americans. They expect the President to take seriously the fight against Islamist terrorists. Does this mean that our commitment in Afghanistan should be unending? Of course not, but we have the right to wage war on those who have waged war against our country.

Second, Ron Paul comes off like a crank. He is on the right side of the argument on the Federal Reserve, for example, but he always does a bad job making the case. He is so reflexively anti-war that he never acknowledges our need to defend our own interests. He often sees conspiracies all around, which is a frightening mindset in a President. Even in the discussion about health care, he makes the following accusation.

These natural and inexpensive ways of regaining one’s health are being suppressed by the FDA and the medical establishment not because of safety concerns (they’ve been around for hundreds of years), but because they cannot be patented and would therefore cut into the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.

This sort of thing goes to temperament and ability to lead. At the end of the day I am looking for someone who seems more ready to lead than Ron Paul. Would I vote for him over Obama? Of course. In fact, I would be excited that libertarian ideas had taken such a firm foothold. But I would fear that a Ron Paul presidency would be the disaster for libertarianism that Obama's has been for leftism.

Time precludes me from diving into Gary Johnson's candidacy, however, the prominence of the drug issue is a distraction. I need more research to properly evaluate his candidacy.

Back to Ron Paul, I urge fellow Tea Party members and others to explain your concerns with Mr. Paul, as I have heard many of you discuss your misgivings.