While I have not endorsed Dr. Paul, this year--nor any of the other candidates;--and have criticized all of them for the nasty tone of their personal attacks on one another; I will certainly take exception to your description.
I do not believe that Dr. Paul has ever taken a "pro-drug" stand. There is an immense difference between recognizing that certain Western States have a right to adopt their own policies with respect to drug legalization, and being "pro-drug." The one is inherent in our Constitutional Federalism, the other would raise a host of other questions, not relevant to this campaign. (And all the sanctimony over certain drug usage, seems a bit strained when the Federal Government now pays for the use of similar drugs, once prescribed, under Medicare.)
Dr. Paul is not anti-war, only anti-undeclared wars, and against wars by which we try to change other people's cultures. So were George Washington & Thomas Jefferson. (And see Pseudo Pragmatism.)
And on the subject of "war," at least one of the other candidates has certainly sounded like he wants to start a war with Iran, without even taking the issue to Congress. That is the sort of thing that should alarm all of us. For openers, if Iran is really such a threat to regional stability--it would be time for Europe to start protecting their back yard. Since the Monroe Doctrine, there has been a now neglected understanding that we take care of problems in this Hemisphere, and they take care of problems in their Hemisphere. The idea that we should risk the lives & limbs of young Americans, as well as drain our material resources. while Europe sits on their hands, is not defensible. Nor does it make a lot of sense to go after Iran, when North Korea is the more likely source of a nuclear threat, actually closer to American territory, and probably willing to sell nuclear weapons to other countries, being cash starved as she is.
Finally, how is Dr. Paul anymore "anti-tax" than any of the other Republican candidates, all of whom--with most of us approving--favor drastically reduced tax burdens. Bravo for that!
Dr. Paul's appeal to the young, is that he has been the most consistent, through the years, in maintaining the traditional American stand for limited Government & maximum individual responsibility. That consistency has tremendous appeal--especially to those who have recently gotten out of high schools and colleges, where Leftist teachers harped on the contradictions in the voting records of many nominal Conservatives. Unless you have fought in the trenches on a campus--so to speak--you will not appreciate how important such consistency really is.
William Flax
Dr. Paul is constitutionally correct there, but that doesn't change the perception of him as 'pro-legalization,' nor does he spend much energy disabusing that impression.
Dr. Paul is not anti-war, only anti-undeclared wars, and against wars by which we try to change other people's cultures. So were George Washington & Thomas Jefferson. (And see Pseudo Pragmatism.)
See the above reply. A candidacy is as much built upon the priorities of the supporters as it is the actual positions of the candidate, the rose-colored glasses of wishful thinking.
Finally, how is Dr. Paul anymore "anti-tax" than any of the other Republican candidates, all of whom--with most of us approving--favor drastically reduced tax burdens. Bravo for that!
Absolutely true, and the principal reason he enjoyed so much support here for so long. It was easier for FReepers to be against stupid wars when Bubba was initiating them.
Dr. Paul's appeal to the young, is that he has been the most consistent, through the years, in maintaining the traditional American stand for limited Government & maximum individual responsibility.
Not true. Young people have not been following Dr. Paul's positions for decades, so the benefit of "consistency" isn't there. They tend to derive their preferences as part of a herd. Upon rejecting conservatism for its social values (because of their ignorance of social conservative mechanics and the consequences of liberalism and the media-driven amplification of their hedonistic drives), while simultaneously feeling revulsion for their Marxist professors, where else is there for them to go?
That consistency has tremendous appeal--especially to those who have recently gotten out of high schools and colleges, where Leftist teachers harped on the contradictions in the voting records of many nominal Conservatives.
College professors don't harp on the voting records. That would require research or something. Too hard you know, nor is it part of the job description, which is really all about agreeing with their peers and writing grant proposals.