Second, if elected, Paul would have to contend with an overall unfriendly Congress who would be unwilling to support most of his revolutionary measures, including overturning Roe v. Wade, and Paul himself does not support a federal ban on abortion. Also, Ketterer’s argument for the Supreme Court’s great wisdom is shortsighted. Remember, it voted to end the Florida recount in 2000, sticking us with an illegal president.

Lastly, Ketterer defeated her own argument when she inferred that Paul is a dispassionate capitalist, yet in the very next sentence conceded that the U.S. is playing the neo-liberal game, like it or not. At any rate, Paul is not an isolationist; he simply doesn’t believe we should be establishing bases abroad for resource wars and empire at the expense of our nation’s economic security. Money is real, and we’re going to have to pay off our $9 trillion debt somehow. Ending the war would be a great start, and though Congress may balk at some of Paul’s grandiose libertarian ideas, they would be hard pressed to deny ending the war if he were to push for it.

Overall, Ron Paul is the pragmatic choice for president; you may not agree with everything he says, but he is the only candidate with a chance of securing a party nomination that is addressing the issues of utmost concern. To discourage a candidate with such potential to affect desperately needed change because of his personal stance on abortion is, in my opinion, irresponsible and selfish.

Chris McTaggart

international studies and anthropology senior