Good post, but in your admiration for Ronald Reagan you fail to point out the wide disparity between Reagan’s rhetoric and his policies. His legacy will forever be one of greatly expanded government and disdain for the Constitution. I support Ron Paul because he is so unlike Reagan in that he actually pays more than lip service to the Constitutional checks upon government growth that the founders intended.

By the way, I began my political life as a Reagan Republican. Ronald Reagan was the first man running for President of the United States that I ever cast a ballot for (in the 1976 California Presidential primary election). It was, however, Reagan’s treasonous (to principle) selection of Richard Schweiker (one of the most liberal members of the Senate at the time) as his running mate at the nominating convention which caused me to abandon the Republican Party for 31 years. I did not return to my Republican roots until Ron Paul sought the Party’s nomination to run for President in 2008. I am giving it one more shot in 2012. If at that time the Party rejects Ron Paul or equivalent, I am through with politics altogether. I have already had it with the Libertarian Party now that they have been taken over by conservative (sorry Ron, you lost the definition battle) xenophobic warmongers.

The Republican Party has rarely stood for anything other than big government tyranny. Their spokespeople tend to be more libertarian rhetorically when they are out of power, but they never fully relinquish their totalitarian tendencies. So why am I still registered to vote as a Republican? Because the Party is in disarray and is ripe for a takeover. If Ron Paul runs again in 2012 and some of his followers get elected to Congress in 2010, there may yet be hope.

Mark

-DHA-