The visionary: Ron Paul
Question:Considering all spheres of endeavor, who would you nominate as Leader of the Year in 2010? Why?
Congressman Ron Paul should be named Leader for 2010. Congressman Paul is a man of character. He does not retreat from his opinion in the face of hostile opposition and corporate-controlled media's "ignore strategy," unlike the rest of the so-called leaders of both major parties. In April 2007, when Fox News hosted the Republican debate held in Florida, there was an effort to assemble an anti-Ron Paul crowd and twice he was booed for his non-interventionist foreign policy. This is a sharp contrast to the feelings of the majority of Americans, who want an end to militarism and who want to bring the troops home from Iraq.
Furthermore, bringing the troops home should not be seen as a retreat or surrender as some have suggested. Despite hostile crowds, Paul was able to make his points and perform well, and won the Fox post-debate poll. As a leader, Congressman Paul is well researched and versed in an array of issues, while also having an incredible grasp of the U.S. Constitution and its impact on economics, government and war. This understanding serves as a baseline for everything he advocates. He handily beat all Republican candidates three years ago in the debates--as a matter of fact, he embarrassed them.
Congressman Paul has a solid vision of war and how our foreign policy should be waged. He said, "If you want to go to war, you should go to war properly. Declare it, win it, and get it over with." While President Obama calls for staying the course possibly for another decade in Iraq, Congressman Paul would bring the troops home immediately. This further distinguishes him from the Republican party as well as from top Democrats such as the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He matches up well against them. He said of Clinton, "She voted for the war, now she says she can't get the troops out until 2013 and she won't rule out a military first strike against Iran." A Ron Paul foreign policy would be humble and peaceful, but not at the expense of a strong defense.
