Replies

Consider a few things -- and before you start flaming me -- understand that I do not support Paul, and I would not vote for him unless he were the nominee and therefore the only choice:

Paul's politics are essentially the politics of the Founders. His Constitutional opinions are generally quite valid. The foreign policy and military outlook of the Founders was predicated on the fact that we were surrounded by two oceans to the east and west, and by wilderness to the north and south (and yes, to the west as well for a long time.)
That geography no longer represents a serious obstacle to our enemies, and to the extent that Paul's isolationism continues to reflect the geopolitical realities of 1787, he is, indeed, a crackpot. But that does not change his Constitutional soundness.
In the 1920's, Americans universally believed that Congress had no authority to ban the manufacture, sale, importation, or consumption of alcohol. By 1936, possession, sale, and importation of particular kinds of vegetables was banned completely by a simple act of Congress. By the 1990's a single Federal Bureaucrat named David Kessler asserted an absolute right to regulate tobacco in any manner he desired by simply issuing a policy statement. At the beginning of the 21st Century, we are now witnessing the spectacle of municipal policy makers banning the use of a legal product in our own homes.
If you can't see that alcohol and drug prohibition have done tremendous violence to our liberty -- while accomplishing virtually nothing to reduce consumption -- I have nothing more to say to you. I'm not a (L/l)ibertarian but I believe the "Drug War" is stupid, expensive, has bloated the government, robbed us of our freedom, and is ultimately counterproductive.
It needs to go away.
Newt Gingrich, no (l/L)ibertarian by any means, is largely on-board with Ron Paul in re: the Fed, and he is correct. The idea that a government of, by, and for the People allows a completely unelected and unaccountable oligarchy of bankers to set monetary (and consequently, to a large degree fiscal) policy without oversight or even transparency is a disgrace to the Republic and a violation of the Constitution. The Fed has now p!ssed away trillions of dollars completely in secret on behalf of the United States. The money will need to be repaid by people as yet unborn, or will show up in the form of inflation on current taxpayers, and in either case represents an absolute despotism because neither we, the living, nor the unborn have been permitted the chance to so much as squeak our displeasure.
The Fed must be brought to heel, or it must be destroyed. Paul is simply NOT wrong about that. And it is good to hear there are actual conservatives now voicing many of the same opinions.
9/11 and Israel: he's an ass, who's [nearly] disqualified himself with his slimy insinuations.
Gay "marriage:" his thoughts largely reflect the thinking of the next generation of Americans. Very sadly and with tragic and devastating consequences for the country, I agree. Nevertheless, the solution to this problem is probably going to be determined by medical technology, because we will lose the political battle completely in the next 20-30 years.
Abortion: Strongly pro-life. Do FReepers disagree with that?
Libertarianism is an important component of the Republican party and is the source of a great many ideas (some good, some not) and energy (some good, some not.) Not all of Paul's supporters are going to vote for 0bama or for the Libertarian Party. Nevertheless, I would much rather have liberatarian influences in my Party than the influences of, say, the Maine Ladies or John McCain.

Not all of Paul's supporters are going to vote for 0bama or for the Libertarian Party.

Most will, and you know it. Just read the Ron Paul forums. These people have absolutely no use for any of the Republicans who may actually win the GOP nomination. And Paul's strongest base of support is college kids (and perhaps young techie types) who are focused mostly on his social libertarian agenda - drug legalization and isolationist/peacenik policies. I would suggest that the overwhelming vast majority of these kids will AGAIN end up voting for Obama as the lesser of 2 evils between the Republican and Democratic party. Oh sure, the people who truly understand what Ron Paul represents won't vote for Obama, but they'll end up voting for the Libertarian candidate.

Libertarianism is an important component of the Republican party and is the source of a great many ideas (some good, some not) and energy (some good, some not.)

I really want to agree with you here, but I ask you this - if Ron Paul is supposed to be a Republican yet won't even endorse the eventual nominee of his own party, what good is he? What good is he to Republicans if the supporters he supposedly brings simply bail the minute he loses the nomination? What good is he if his supporters won't even likely vote for Republicans downballot because they can't vote for socially conservative candidates?

Everyone knows Paul is simply using the Republican party label because no one would even pay attention to him if he ran as the Libertarian he truly is. I don't mind candidates having a libertarian streak, but Ron Paul isn't a conservative with some libertarian views, he is a straight up Libertarian candidate dishonestly using the GOP label.

“That geography no longer represents a serious obstacle to our enemies, and to the extent that Paul’s isolationism continues to reflect the geopolitical realities of 1787, he is, indeed, a crackpot.” “9/11 and Israel: he’s an ass, who’s [nearly] disqualified himself with his slimy insinuations.”

And there you have it.

I think all true conservatives have libertarian aspects in that we believe in the Constitution. And I agree with RP about sound money vs. fiat currency and that the Fed is harmful for the reasons you (and he) have cited.

BUT - your comments listed at the top of my post illustrate why, in this dangerous, modern, politically correct climate, Ron Paul’s foreign policy outlook, ignorance and refusal to learn the facts are HUGE deal-breakers that would be suicidal for our country, and far outweigh the few other things that he’s right about.