Ron Paul, Texas congressman Credit: Associated Press

By

"If Ron Paul thinks," said Bill Kristol, Republican standard-bearer and frequent Fox News pundit, "it'll be good for our individual liberties to have an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons and then a nuclear arms race in the Middle East . . . he's welcome to that view, but I don't agree with it."

So goes the primary Republican objection that the ideal conservative congressman from Texas - a man who has voted against new government spending so consistently he earned the nickname "Dr. No" - would not make the ideal conservative president.

Humbug.

Examine the constancy of Paul's renowned voting record. Though Paul sided with Republican dictum in denouncing Obamacare - calling it a "constitutional monstrosity" and joining all other House Republicans in voting against it - he marched counter-step in 2003 when President George W. Bush and other Republicans pushed a $400 billion (now ballooning to $1 trillion) expansion of Medicare, again voting "no" while supposed conservative stalwarts such as Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and then-Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania voted "yes."

During the 2008 and 2009 fiscal crisis, Paul voted "no" on the GM/Chrysler bailout, "no" on TARP, "no" on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (the Wall Street bailout) and "no" on taxpayer-funded doughnuts and coffee for bailout hearings. Admittedly, the latter was never brought to a vote.

On issues of life and abortion, Paul's 0% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America - a tally of his voting record and a virtual rave review from the perspective of pro-life voters - is the same as social conservative Santorum's. Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, seeking to define life as beginning at conception and consistently opposed federal funding for organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

Paul wants to cut more federal government departments and agencies than uberconservative Rick Perry could even remember. In the Texas governor's infamous "oops" moment during a CNBC debate in Michigan, he turned directly to Paul and immediately forgot which three departments he would cut. Paul's response wasn't to challenge Perry's faulty memory but to simply say, "you need five."

On taxes, few are as aggressively anti-tax as Paul. Herman Cain wanted to throw out the current tax code; Paul wants to throw out the Internal Revenue Service. And he is one of the few politicians consistently pointing out the invisible tax of inflation (read: gas prices).

On those gas prices, Paul sponsored the Affordable Gas Price Act to allow drilling in U.S. waters and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge while his voting record - well, you get the point by now.

What better conservative to hold presidential veto powers than "Dr. No"? It's true that Paul doesn't fit the traditional mold of a Republican nominee for president. Good. We expect our Republicans to be beholden to the Kristolites and embrace the refrain that well-tailored Brooks Brothers digestibility trumps the record. Then we nominate the wrong candidates.

As for the criticism that Kristol - and so many others - have of Paul's foreign policy, I offer Paul's own words: "I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10-mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe."

I am, too. Let Mitt Romney run against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Ron Paul should have your vote to run against Barack Obama.

Dan Kenitz of Milwaukee is a freelance writer and a Journal Sentinel community columnist. Email comments@dankenitz.com