Ron Paul's okay, but let us not be naive, and let us be realistic and reality-based.

Even if he went into politics with initial good intent (like some/many do), at some point they all become corrupted by the system. It's inevitable, imo.

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is a nice fantasy, but it was a fictional movie for a reason.

At the point where pretty much everyone, perhaps with a very few exceptions, gets elected as a state congressperson, or similar or higher position, especially national congressperson or higher, or appointed to those higher-level positions (judges, etc.), you have to have already been so corrupted by the system at that point that you are, for the most part, basically worthless. (and its pretty much everywhere, really, like the police officers I've known and met who went into it bright-eyed and wanting to do good, and then you talk to them a few years later and they are seriously jaded and basically uncaring, or worse — I've seen it in the corporate world, in business, in non-profit organizations, in governmental agencies, and so many other places, as well, from top to bottom, really, although ALWAYS more so toward the top — maybe that's just the way things work)

So Ron Paul's not any better than any of the others in that sense.

And, since he looks so "good", I wonder how good of an actor he is and that sort of thing. And how "politically correct" he is acting, as opposed to really caring and such. It helps to be a good actor to be a good politician. (and related "talents", like being a good con-man, manipulator, liar, deceiver, etc.)

No one is "all bad", and agreed, some are better than others, in one or more ways. (but never all or most ways)

So, as usual, you end up choosing the lesser of many evils, if you can even figure that out.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent

http://www.chico911truth.org/