You're right, he's a Republican Congressman. And he's running in the Republican primaries. Those are his choices.
However he's in disagreement with the Republican Party on most major issues. You can find the 2004 Platform here.
Paul is out of step on all positions regarding the WOT, Iraq and foreign affairs. The first issue addressed in the Platform.
Paul is out of step on Homeland Security.
Paul is out of step on economic issues. The platform calls for lower taxes, permanent tax cuts, and tax based incentives for things like savings. Paul would oppose all of these, favoring an elimination of the income tax with no replacement, essentially shutting the government down.
He's out of step on trade, an advocate of tariffs.
On no child left behind.
I don't know if he's a proponent of unions.
He's out of step with the Party's position on medicare and medicaid, investing in health and technological research, and womens health.
Not clear where he is when it comes to water standards or national parks, but these are the bottom of the platform issues, certainlay opposed to agriculture and urban development iniatives.
Won't bother with drugs.
My impression he's opposed to GWB's temporary worker program, as well as opposed to the Party on issues like internet pornography, promoting abstinance, adoption. Also minor issue.
All in all, Paul supports very few Republican positions, as his voting record bears out. Thats fine, and I acknowledge he's been elected as a Republican, but for his supporters to somehow attempt to redefine the Republican Party in the image on non-Republican on the issues Paul is the height of arrogance.
He's the poster boy RINO.
This is supposed to be a bad thing?!?
I have no issue with abolishing the income tax...and I don't imagine what issue I would have with a severe reduction to the operational capacity of the federal government. If we had a federal government that still operated in accord with the Constitution, we would dramatically reduce the federal budget...and try to imagine an America where the federal government wasn't confiscating the fruits of your labor
Last April, Ron Paul wrote on this:
But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.
Paul does not advocate tariffs. You made that up.
He opposes NAFTA because it creates another regulatory body that “manages” trade. That isn’t free.
But who he’s NOT out of step with are the Founders and the Constitution... you know, that pesky document that puts severe limits on what government is allowed to do? Remember? THAT Constitution... the one Bush ignores. Bush’s veto of SCHIP SHOULD have asked Congress the musical question: “WHERE is the Constitutional authority to spend the People’s money on anything to do with health care?” So it’s your Party that’s out of step... with the Constitution, the Founders and the majority (dare I say, “VAST majority?”) of the American People. Even if you don’t like Dr. Paul personally, why are you letting the Stupid Party get away with all these UNCONSTITUTIONAL behaviours??????