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.
As for College Professors? I have tilted with enough of them through the years to know whereof I speak. No, they are not adequate to take on a true Conservative, who understands the issues; but most undergraduates are easily snowed, when their imagined role models are shown to have clay feet--inconsistency.
William Flax
Might just be the degree to which all the other candidates suck.