Originally Posted by silentstriker
You can't call yourself a statesmen and be so rigid in every position that you will never compromise on anything. That's not good governance.
Is it better to be like Romney, changing your positions several times before office; or Obama and change your positions several times after getting into office?
Changing your views is not my definition of a statesman. Being respectful, honest and honourable, and working hard for your constituents and fellow citizens is what I think being a statesman is about. Anyway, Paul is strict on certain principles of governance - which your founders implemented to guarantee good governance. He doesn't really care how you decide to govern yourself apart from following those rules. That is where his rigidity is a virtue. For example, he is against abortion himself; but he believes it is upto the States to decide. Each state can decide as they wish. The principles are to follow the federal model and not allow the majority to condemn the entire nation; and also not to give the central govt. power it should not have.
To go back to my fundamental point when saying Paul is not the establishment candidate: he is not the candidate that wants the status quo to survive. He is not selling himself out for special interests. His cause is for real change, regardless if you agree with that or not. The rest are a different shade of grey.