Two bloggers featured on GCN Live, LD Jackson and Steven Birn, were kind enough to give us their differing analysis of Ron Paul, 2012 Republican presidential candidate, in a piece we’ll call 7 Questions.

1. What do you make of Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy?
LD Jackson (LD): I believe Ron Paul’s foreign policy would certainly get us headed in the right direction, but it is a legitimate issue for the voters to consider. After all, we are all used to the idea of our troops being stationed all over the globe. We are all used to the idea of them being involved in many other countries, in one way or another. If Ron Paul wins the presidency, his would be a stark reversal of the type of foreign policy we have seen for the past several decades.
The biggest hurdle Ron Paul has with his foreign policy is to convince Americans that it would keep us safe. We are so conditioned to believe we have to operate proactively, that the idea of allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, if they so choose, is hard to swallow. Most Americans do not believe diplomacy will work; therefore a Ron Paul foreign policy of diplomacy, instead of threatened military action or sanctions would not work. I am not convinced that is the case, but it is no small task to convince the voters.
Steven Birn (SB): Ron Paul’s policy concerning Iran shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to what motivates the Iranians. Iran is fighting a holy war and as a result negotiating with them or leaving them to control the middle east isn’t an option in the same way as it might be with a secular country. Iran wants to kill the infidel, which means us and all other non-Muslims. If they get a nuclear weapon, there is little doubt that they would use it. Their own death doesn’t matter to them, after are there are dozens of virgins awaiting them.
Ron Paul’s position puts America in a position of weakness and it creates a major problem for our middle east allies, namely Israel. His position also puts him at odds with 70%+ of the Republican Party. This alone could be his biggest obstacle going forward.
2. What do you make of the controversial Ron Paul newsletters that were released in the 1990s?
LD: From the small amount of research I have done, it appears the newsletter issue has already been debunked and proven to be false. It is normal for ghost writers to be employed in such cases and that seems to be what happened with Ron Paul. I do believe he should have been more careful about choosing who wrote the newsletters, but that doesn’t make him a racist, as some would suggest. All one has to do is look at Paul’s actions to realize he is nothing of the kind. Personally, I believe this is a non-issue.
SB: Supposedly Ron Paul’s newsletters were written by Lew Rockwell. Rockwell at one time was the President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which I had gone to for a couple of seminars in college. The Mises Institute has a lot of interesting ideas and arguments. But there was always an underlying hint of anarchy within it. There was also a group, which I believe included Rockwell, that was distinctly Confederate. They had economic arguments for favoring the south, including the fairly plausible argument that white northerners wouldn’t have fought to free black slaves. But that issue was always lurking in the background, which I found bothersome.
Having said that, this issue is irrelevant. Ron Paul’s newsletters may have been an issue in 2008 but no one cares about it now. Maybe if he got the nomination it would matter more. But for the time being, the newsletters don’t matter much.
3. Does Ron Paul have a realistic fighting chance for the GOP nomination outside of Iowa?
LD: I believe Ron Paul’s chances outside of Iowa depends on how he does in the caucuses. Currently, the polls have him at or near the top, but the news media seems to be convinced that the polls are not correct. They are basing that on the fact that Paul does better with voters who are not normally Republican voters. They use that to come to the conclusion that those voters will not show up at the caucuses. I believe that to be a false conclusion.
If Ron Paul wins Iowa, or at least places a close second, it could be the awakening for many voters in the states that hold their primaries later. Winning Iowa doesn’t necessarily guarantee the nomination will go to Paul, but I think it would be a good start. He is being underestimated in Iowa, so winning there could show the rest of the country that he is a serious candidate. So yes, I think he has a realistic chance of winning the GOP nomination, but he has to get past Iowa first.
SB: Outside of Iowa Ron Paul has no chance to win. He has a good ground game in Iowa that has been running hard for six years. Outside of Iowa he has a core group of Ronulans who worship the ground he walks on. Otherwise, he’s hard a hard time gaining new supporters. His position on Iran doesn’t help his cause. He could win Iowa, but he isn’t going to win New Hampshire or South Carolina based on current polls and 2008 results. If he can’t win at least one of those states, he isn’t going to win any.
4. What policy do you most agree with Ron Paul, and what policy do you least agree with Ron Paul? Why?
LD: The policy I agree with most is really difficult. I think it would be safe to say policies, as in plural. What started bringing my attention around to Ron Paul was his accurate prediction of how the housing bubble would burst and how our economy would go in the tank. My main reason for supporting him is the economic policies he is proposing. Our economy is in such terrible shape, mainly because of past policies, and he wants to reverse those, to get the government out of the business of meddling in the economy. It is paramount that we get our government under control and out of the business of manipulation of our economy and our currency. All of the other issues, such as personal liberty and freedom, are important to me, but the economy takes precedence.
The policy on which I disagree most with Ron Paul is easy. That would be abortion. I understand that he disagrees with the practice vehemently. That is a good thing. I also understand that he wants to remove abortion from the federal level and send it back to the individual states. While I agree that the federal government has taken entirely too much power for itself, I am not sure abortion should be completely removed from its jurisdiction. The murder of innocent babies is no small issue and I am not sure it can be dealt with on the state level.
SB: I generally like Ron Paul’s economic policy. I agree we need to cut at least $1 trillion from the budget. We need to shut down several Federal agencies. I wouldn’t mind auditing the Fed, though I question what exactly it will accomplish.
I disagree with Paul vehimently on social issues. Abortion and homosexual marriage aren’t mere state issues. They’re issues of national morality. Ron Paul claims to be pro-life but he views the morning after pill as unlegislatable and a states rights issue. A baby isn’t a state issue, it’s a life deserving of protection. The notion that it isn’t possible to legislate morality or legislate something like the morning after pill is absurd. All law is morality, the question is whose. Even if some people murder their unborn babies with a law against the morning after pill in place, there’s nothing stopping the government from prosecuting the offense. Paul’s argument seems to be that if women will kill their babies anyway there’s no point in legislating against it. One wonders what the point of any law is then.
5. Is Ron Paul a good fit for the Republican party? Is he a good fit for America?
LD: Ron Paul is probably a better fit for America than he is for the Republican Party. I base that conclusion on how his proposed policies go against a lot of what our current party stands for. The most obvious example of those differences is foreign policy. Because he is so straightforward in how he talks about this issue, many in the Republican Party dismiss him out-of-hand. He tells them the truth, instead of what they want to hear. Because the truth is so far removed from the talking points of the Republican Party, it may be difficult for him to overcome.
There is a stark difference between Ron Paul and the other GOP candidates. On a lot of the issues, there is as much a difference between them as there is between Paul and Obama. With his refusal to pander to different groups and to stick to the truth of the issues, it remains to be seen if Ron Paul can be a good fit for America. I think he is exactly what America needs, at this point in our history. It is ironic that he has to get past the Republicans first.
SB: Ron Paul is an interesting person to have within the GOP as he does a good job of shifting focus toward smaller government. If he didn’t hold to such extreme libertarianism on issues of morality and foreign policy, he wouldn’t be a bad nominee. Ron Paul is probably better off in the House trying to move the GOP Caucus to the right.
6. Looking at the remaining seven GOP candidates (nine if you want to include Palin and Trump), rank them in order of who you think is the most likely to win the GOP nomination – NOT what you want, but what you think will happen.
LD: I would rank their chances of winning the GOP nomination as follows: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Jon Huntsman.
SB: At this point it appears to be a battle between Newt and Romney. There’s always a chance that someone like Bachmann pulls off a surprise upset in Iowa. At this time the slight edge goes to Newt as he’s up on Romney in Iowa. After Romney wins New Hampshire, Newt is up in South Carolina and Florida and if he pulls those states off it’s over. If Romney wins Iowa, he’ll end up with the nomination.
7. In your opinion, who is the best GOP candidate to face and beat Obama in 2012?
LD: This one is easy. I will go with Ron Paul. If he can get past the Republican establishment and have the chance to present his case to the rest of the voters, he can beat Barack Obama in 2012. I know a lot of people do not see that as the case, but there is a stark contrast between his record and that of Obama. It would go a long ways towards making the case for Ron Paul to the average American voter. Couple that with his record for telling the truth and I think we could have the recipe for the kind of change we need in Washington.
SB: All of them are the best candidate to defeat Barack Obama. There isn’t one of these candidates that can’t beat him. By far and away Newt would do a better job debating Obama, which alone could make him the better candidate. But when generic Republican beats Obama consistently for a year in the polls, you have to figure any of these Republicans can win once they secure the nomination.
For news and commentary that strives to recognize the reality of politics, visit Political Realities.
Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.
Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.