I confess that the article has me thinking. There are lots of Ron Paul positions I disagree with. Serious ones. But, on the other hand, they are his positions now, in the past and in the future. Compare that with any other candidate, president or ex-president and see what you come up with.

When one voted for Ronald (I just deregulated the truth) Reagan, George (no new taxes) Bush, Bill (I never had sexual relations with that woman) Clinton, Junior (Iraq has WMDs) Bush, Barrack (I will close Guantanamo) Obama or so many others, promises seem to be unimportant. Lies are the norm. Decisions are always in favor of big money.

So, yeah, voting for Ron Paul would mean voting for positions I disagree with. But voting for anyone else means not knowing what I am voting for. Based on that choice, maybe voting for integrity is the most important. It certainly would be a change and change is certainly needed.