b2

Granted, many of his devotees are behind him simply because of his virulent anti-war stance, and for me that is a total turn-off. There’s a lot of confusion, much of it deliberate, behind what GWB was trying to say about 9/11 WRT Iraq. Many (too many) to this very day contend that he was accusing Iraq of being involved to an actionable degree in the attacks of 9/11. I didn’t hear that at all in what he said. Fundamentally, what I took away was “isolationism cannot work, and is too dangerous to try. 9/11 shows that they can hurt us very badly if we don’t do something to address the bigger problems in that region.”

Paul is preaching a dangerous level of isolationism.

That said, being horribly wrong about that and being (apparently) a horrible racist doesn’t make him wrong about everything. I do believe that our federal government is too big and too invloved in our lives. On this topic, I view Paul as the anti-Nanny (insert ‘Clinton’ or ‘Bloomberg’ as presumptive Nannys), and I agree that we need a more libertarian leaning to offset the growth of the last few decades. Surely many (if not most) of his actual proposals are as ill-informed as his isolationist preachings, but I certainly do see how the overall tenet of a smaller, more constutionally compliant Federal government would be appealing.

Lex, how did you get Paul to pose for that pix? It’s a GREAT action shot!

Ron Paul is either a racist weasel or he’s too incompetent to monitor what is being printed in his name. Those are the only two ways to interpret the evidence as it stands now, and either one is sufficient to make Dr Paul ineligible for President. Regardless of his stance on issues.