NO, he doesn't. Change doesn't come quickly. Or, rather, LASTING change doesn't come quickly absent divine intervention.
Even, heaven forbid, should Ron Paul be elected and placed in power TODAY, we wouldn't get an "opportunity to bypass the process of slow, torturous, one-percentile-point-a-year progress" because there would be a MASSIVE BACKLASH to his efforts.
Further, there is the problem that everything Ron Paul wants would have to go through Congress and, likely, the courts. Not only does that take time, but there would be significant resistance to efforts for quick, significant change.
Our polity was purposely designed for slow change. Yes, we've moved FAR from the founder's intentions. We will not get back there with some quick fix like electing your libertarian super-hero. We would likely lose ground as a result of his efforts, not gain it, ultimately. (Just as, mirabile dictu, Obama's efforts may actually cause the liberals to lose ground due to the massive backlash of 2010 and the hopefully massive backlash of 2012.)
When you find yourself sinking in quicksand you don't plan to master yogic breath retention. We don't have ten, 20, 30 years to re-build the Republic. We may not have five, or three.
While we talk about the coming Election, what we really need is not an Election but a LOCK-OUT. While we wrangle over choosing a candidate who can not only win but might actually do something constructive AFTER being elected, knowing that this candidate will be disemboweled by the media while our own refuse to lay a glove on the Anointed One, the ugly reality is that one of the candidates in the race should not be running at all but should be
impeached. Not acknowledging this unpleasant reality is to already lose anything that really matters.
