Traditionally, a candidate will run for office because he or she believes he or she is the best person for the job. Paul is running on the ideal of reverting back to the principles of the Constitution. This ideal leads to a political direction which is bigger than any candidate in the field. This ideal will direct almost every aspect of American life.
A traditional presidential candidate will make a statement of how he or she is the best person to lead the country for the next four to eight years. Paul is not only making a similar statement, he is also making a statement of how the national has lost direction and needs to go back to its roots. He is trying to change the mindset of the country.
When the inevitable end comes, the Texas representative should not endorse anyone for the presidency. An endorser makes a statement that the endorsee is the person which shows the most strength for the political party. In Paul's case, though, the message would be much different. Paul's endorsement would mean the endorsee was the candidate most apt to guide the country back into usage of the Constitution.
An endorsement of Paul would be a disappointment to his supporters and would counter his entire campaign. Supporters of the representative believe he is the "only" person who could direct the nation back towards the Constitution. The representative is not only running on the idea of being the president, he is running on the ideal of reshaping the perspective of the nation. How could anyone else lead the country by using Paul's vision?
While I have not chosen who I will support in the 2012 election yet, I have to commend Paul for creating a movement in the U.S. which continues to bring up the question of constitutionality. I have to commend him for making his campaign bigger than himself. Other politicians should take note.
I doubt he would endorse unless they put him as VP or Rand as VP. Otherwise no way.
ReplyDelete