Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., is a constitutionalist because he wants to conserve the U.S. Constitution - the most important governmental document ever produced in 6,000 years of recorded human history, after the Holy Bible.
As an ObGyn (who has delivered over 4,000 babies), he believes that life begins at the moment of conception and believes that abortion is immoral. Libertarians don’t take this stance.
Libertarians are for legalizing marijuana and other harmful drugs. Ron Paul, M.D., has taken the Hypocratic Oath to do no harm and does not support legalizing any currently-illegal drugs. If he had ever supported legalizing illegal drugs, his Congressional record would have shown this somewhere - and it doesn’t.
Ron Paul is known as “Dr. NO” in the House of Representatives. Kent Snyder, Dr. Paul’s right-hand man, did his Master’s thesis on Ron Paul. Kent went through about 4,000 votes to find out how many times Congressmen cast a single dissenting vote against a piece of legislation. If I remember correctly, Kent said (at UROC’s Spring Convention, 2005) that there were about 68 Congressmen who had voted NO on a single piece of legislation ONCE and never cast another single dissenting vote. Ron Paul, on the other hand, cast over 70 single dissenting votes on legislation because the pieces of legislation were not innumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
He believes in free trade as opposed to managed trade through organizations (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, GATT, FTAA, etc.) which only enrich the multi-national corporations while robbing millions of middle-class Americans of their jobs. Actually, the term “free trade” should be “fair trade.”
I believe most “conservatives” want to conserve the U.S. Constitution, too.
I don’t doubt his “constitutionalist” stance ... but his foreign policy stances are a dealbreaker. Sure - most conservatives support the preservation of the Constitution ... but most also support a “peace through strength” Reaganesque foreign policy.
The key is to find a candidate who represents mainstream conservatism ... and that candidate is NOT Ron Paul (if it were ... he’d be doing better). Paul may represent most conservatives fiscally/ constitutionally ... but so do candidates like Tancredo and Thompson - and they’re not completely off the reservation when it comes to foreign affairs.
Paul’s foreign policy is a dealbreaker for myself ... and the VAST majority of conservatives. A candidate that is unelectable (which Paul is) is completely useless to conservatism because he’ll NEVER have the power to institute any of his ideas.
A
As an ObGyn..., he believes that life begins at ... conception and that abortion is immoral.
He believes that life begins at conception and that abortion is immoral, but you can't say that those beliefs were determined by his medical profession and experiences. After all, there are many Ob-Gyns who are "abortion providers."
Libertarians don't take that [pro-life, anti-abortion] stance.
Some do, some don't. "Libertarians" aren't totalitarians and aren't obliged to follow a party line. There are many shades of opinion within the spectrum of "libertarianism."
Libertarians are for legalizing marijuana and other harmful drugs. Ron Paul, M. D., has taken the Hypocratic Oath to do no harm and does not support legalizing any currently illegal drugs.
First, again you paint with a broad brush. Some libertarians are for legalizing marijuana to varying degrees, others against it. Again, "libertarians" vary. Second, the mere fact that Dr. Paul took the Hypocratic Oath, or that any doctor took the Hypocratic Oath, has no definite relationship to that doctor's position on legalizing currently illegal drugs. The Hypocratic Oath relates to the doctor's behavior vis-a-vis his patients, not vis-a-vis government and politics. Third, based upon what I've read in The Almanac of American Politics, Dr. Paul has in fact favored some legalization of some currently illegal drug(s), but I'm unaware of his specific positions in that area.
Just for the sake of accuracy, the reason Ron Paul's Congressional record doesn't show much support for legalizing drugs is because he doesn't think it's properly a Congressional issue at all -- he believes that,under the Tenth Amendment, it is Constitutionally an issue which belongs to the Legislatures of the several States.
So, a more accurate statement would be, "as a Doctor, Ron Paul personally thinks that self-medicating with non-prescribed drugs is bad for you and you shouldn't do it -- however, he would leave it up to the individual States to decide the legality thereof."
“As an ObGyn (who has delivered over 4,000 babies), he believes that life begins at the moment of conception and believes that abortion is immoral.”
So what would Ron Paul do to protect the life of an unborn? Nothing. He would leave that up to the states. IOW, an unborn would be protected in one state but not another.
“Libertarians don’t take this stance.”
Actually, Paul pretty much toes the libertarian line on abortion. Deplore it, but do nothing about it. Kind of like the democrats.