I'd think that it's obvious he's a conservative-Republican (not a Bushie, that's for sure). More conservative than the current party-leadership anyhow. He would have been a great candidate pre-Reagan era.
I like the neocon intellectual ideology, but I do find 80% of Ron Paul's positions desirable. The only thing that sucks about him is his electibility and his inability to get things done. His experience consists of legislature duties. Not too impressive, either.
But were Ron Paul electable, I would certainly have voted for him. Second best choice is Rudy, third best choice (and the only one of the three I liked that still has a chance) is Hillary Rodham Clinton, but it's looking like the press is working against her so much that Barack Hussein cakefarts can't be stopped. I think that's a bit unfortunate. As much as I hated Bill, I think his wife's fantastic. Besides, Bill wasn't all bad. He had quite a few centrist redeeming qualities.
Trivia: In the 2000 elections, who ran as an isolationist?
Answer: George W. Bush
Trivia: In the 2000 elections, who claimed we should be more involved and have America be a leader in the world? (And who supported nation-building when his party was in power?)
Answer: Al Gore.
What changed the dynamic? 9/11
Granted, while I disagree with the conservative ideology on the point of "we should only be involved with foreign countries when our interests are at stake", I do think that liberals are being rather hypocritical with their own ideology when they oppose "nation building". Would I love to go to Darfur? Sure. It's not possible right now, but assuming it's our troops and assuming they're allowed to shoot a gun if they need to, I'm all for it.
Point in case: Ron Paul's a true conservative, what you're seeing "liberals" do with the democrat party is what Nader was afraid of all along. And it's why I now support Hillary for president.
Author
Topic: Ron Paul Cons? (Read 2286 times)