While I do think you’re on to something there, I still think Bachmann, Santorum, and perhaps even Cain have a reasoned view of it, and want to adhere to it.
Paul does get high marks there, but if you really think about it, his take on the military is not exactly sound since the Constitution does recognize the Military as one of the items justified for fed spending.
We supposedly spend a little over a trillion dollars on the War on Terrorism, and Paul savagely attacks that frequently. He says the nation can’t survive the war costs. Strangely he remains mute in the public arena on Welfare spending that is at least five times as large.
He may attack that too on the internet, but his passion is clearly the military, and something debatable that is 500% worse, he remains mute on in public.
One is constitutional. The other is not.
“Strangely he remains mute in the public arena on Welfare spending that is at least five times as large.”
No, not really mute on welfare.
“The US Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.”