This article incorrectly lables Congressman Walter Jones as a Democrat. He is a Republican.
Anyhow, Paul is the only candidate other then Hagel for whom I'll vote for a D instead. If we are going to cut-and-run in the WOT, I'd rather do it when a D is President so they will get blamed for the inevitable.
For me, Paul and Hagel are the only Republican candidates I'll support at this point. I'm not voting for a neocon or a socialist, so I'm either voting for an anti-war Republican or a Libertarian.
Using RNC talking point terminology like "Cut and run" is not a rational reply.
Ron Paul in the interview lays out specific reasons why interventionism is not the conservative, small government position, and why it is not the historic conservative position. If you disagree then why do you disagree?
Boilerplate like "I would rather fight them over there than fight them over here" is meaningless drivel. Why is global interventionism the best policy? How is it a "conservative" policy?