Electing a POLITICIAN vs. Electing a LEADER

[wgadget]

Ron is the consummate LEADER, while IMO Swingrich, Romney and Santorum are only POLITICIANS. The latter do those things that are politically expedient, no matter what they said last year or last week on the issue. A LEADER thinks outside the box, marches to his own drummer, doesn't care what people think, because he is the trendsetter.

Bad thing is, debates and the media like the thrill of POLITICIANS with all their inconsistencies, bickering and wrangling.

But what America needs now is a real LEADER like Ron, who doesn't go along to get along, but who actually has "bold" ideas not for his own sake, but for the good of the country. A real LEADER like Ron attracts voters from all across the political spectrum, just like he said in his final answer of yesterday's debate.

So when is the LIKE A BOSS moneybomb?

[James Madison]

See, I don't think Ron wants to be a leader, and that's one of the reasons we all like him. Dr. Paul believes that INDIVIDUALS can make decisions for themselves and without input from the government. Electing a leader is basically saying that people (and the market) can't be left to their own devices; the state needs to supervise them at all times. Jesus cautioned us about electing people who exault themselves as leaders, for those people are wolves in sheep's clothing. Instead, choose the man who is humble, righteous. That's Ron Paul. That's what I want from the office of president.

[wgadget]

Ron is a NEW kind of leader, the kind that makes him a favorite around the world. Just because he isn't domineering doesn't mean he's not a leader. His kind of leadership could literally change the world in a good way.

[James Madison]

I think it already has. :)

[bolil]

Dr. Paul is a leader in the manner of Robert E. Lee. A man who would rather not be involved, who's hand is forced by circumstance. These other guys are like the Union Generals Burnside and Hooker who wanted to "lead" men to satisfy their own want of prestige, they were politicians first and generals second and it is little wonder a true leader whooped them for so long. I think I should mention that Robert E. Lee did not fight for slavery, regardless of what a high school selective history book says; he fought for his home. Ron is fighting for his home, America at large, his supporters are testament to his authenticity, yea, to his so called "electability". The differences on this forum alone are vast: Anarchists, Conservatives, Liberals, Homosexuals, Heterosexuals, Palestinians, Jews, People of all colors throw their support, their hopes behind Doctor Paul. What other candidate can claim such a broad spectrum of support? The other guys are just politicians, appealing to very a very narrow (though large in number) spectrum of Americans. An excellent example of this was offered by their near identical response to last nights debate question regarding Palestine, with the pretenders Newt, Frothy, and Mittens finding another topic they all agree on because they know the support of that particular demographic is absolutely integral to their campaigns.

Dr. Paul is a leader, the only leader on the stage, because he is the only one that can and does unite diverse people behind a common cause, liberty; and as the greatest leaders do, he leads by example.