Presidential hopeful Ron Paul's views not for U.S.

Before I read Phil Letten’s letter titled Columnist underestimates presidential contender (SN 11/28), I couldn’t be sure who would win the most opulent popularity contest in the U.S. Now, thanks to Letten’s statistics, I can be sure Ron Paul is right for me. It sounds like he might even be as cool as my high school quarterback! I mean, with 1,225 meet-up groups, why wouldn’t I vote for Paul?

Maybe because I have ovaries. Or, possibly, because I detest hypocrisy. Despite his claims to support personal freedoms, Paul is vehemently anti-choice. He says he votes only to uphold the principles of the Constitution. Interestingly, we already have an entire branch of government devoted to deciphering the nuances of said document and, last I checked, Paul isn’t running for the Supreme Court. Voting straight from the Constitution is a great way to ignore more than 200 years of hard-won history.

Perhaps most disturbingly, Paul would make a crappy diplomat. His free-market views promote a necessarily isolationist approach to world affairs — unless of course he wants to exploit another country for profit. Whether we like it or not, the U.S. has forced its way to global dominance. While I agree we need to get out of Iraq, there can be no good argument for withdrawing from world affairs.

I don’t care if Paul just read “Atlas Shrugged” — libertarianism still won’t work for America.

Em Ketterer

chemistry senior