My initial impressions of Ron Paul were quite good. In fact I thought it was great that there was a congressman actually putting forth resolutions to get rid of the UN.
But I've read his writings and speeches and he toes the leftist "blood for oil" conspiracy-like line. His views are no different than what one would read in the Nation or Guardian or that come from Chomsky. Paul comes from a different angle in presenting his views and couches them differently, but they are identical in their take home message.
His actual views as stated by him in speeches and writings are very different than hpw he presents himself and how he is presented by his supporters. It is very strange.
I believe with our own oil reserves (particularly those we are placing "off limits") and with our nuclear (which we have also effectively placed "off limits") and alternate energy capabilities, that our nation could be energy independent within a fe short years if our leaders worked to make it a national priority.
I believe it should be a priority and I believe there are very strong lobbying, internatlional/foreign and internal interests that are bent on keeping it from happening ... and I do not believe that it is in this nation's best interest.
Anyhow, we each have our "moments". While I do not agree with a few things Paul says, I must admit that I find myself in agreement with the vast majority of what he puts forward legislatively and do wish there were many more like him in Congress ... as opposed to the Ted Kennedy's, the Boxers, the Feinsteins, the Shumers, the Dashels, etc., etc.
...It is, indeed, very strange. An eye opener, maybe a "third eye opener"...