WHY I MAY VOTE FOR RON PAUL

I voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. He had stood for and signed a great Civil Rights Bill. He had launched the bid for the Great Society. And he declared "War on Poverty."

But why, we should have asked, go to "War" to get rid of poverty? We didn't ask that. And anyway, in 1964 he ran against an absolute idiot, Barry Goldwater.

(Though we didn't know it, in 1964 we already had the War in Vietnam. In 1962, Paul H. Corscadden started training CIA infiltrators into North Vietnam. Corscadden was later the "CIA delegate"--as he described himself--to the Paris Peace Talks. But then he was suddenly called away, "to assume a sensitive desk in Chile"--whence the attempted murder of Salvador Allende, ordered by Richard Nixon, and then Allende's assassination in 1973.)

I have been more careful with my vote since 1964. But the choice didn't even seem to need carefulness in 2008. How wrong I was. It's not that McCain would have been better than Obama, but that he would have been honest. And I would rather have an honest fool in office than a viciously dishonest and unprincipled man who is supposedly intelligent.

So maybe this next time I will support Ron Paul. He supports Bradley Manning, and points out Obama's dishonesty. Whistle-blowers? Bradley Manning is the most important whistle-blower since Daniel Ellsburg--and Obama has had him in prison for sixteen months: has tortured him for eight of those months: and has declared that Bradley Manning "broke the law."

So: Ron Paul for president! And any of my "liberal" friends who are upset at my support for Ron Paul can maybe think about who they are supporting--and what he stands for.

Obama's illegal wars, his political assassinations, his concentration camp at Guantanamo, Bradley Manning in prison. That's Mr. Obama to date. Quite a record for a supposedly intelligent Harvard lawyer who promised to end Bush's wars, close Guantanamo, and support whistle-blowers and a lawful, transparent democracy.

Bert Hornback