‘even on FR their candidate is dismissed as a “loon” and a “racist anti-semite”’
Please explain.
If by some miracle Ron Paul were the Republican candidate going against Obama, then these Freepers would have to make a decision:
Would they rather have Obama, who is most likely sane, or Ron Paul, whom they claim is totally insane, as president?
Would they rather have Obama, who may be incompetent and ideologically skewed but is generally considered at least moderately intelligent, or someone who is so damned stupid as to be a racist and anti-semite as president?
I am virtually certain that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee. If he is, however, I will be glad to vote for him rather than Obama. I am as certain that he is not a loon or a racist or an anti-semite, as I am certain that he will not be the nominee.
Fortunately for those Freepers that claim that Paul is a lunatic and a dunce they will most likely not have to consider whether such a person is preferable to Obama.
Personally I believe that libertarianism is a fatally flawed ideology. Ron Paul, as many have noted, is not a libertarian purist. He is a politician, after all. Also, he would have to work with a decidedly non-libertarian congress. This might actually be a good synergy.
The biggest compaint against Paul is that he wouldn't go to war to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians. He has gone on record as supporting the congress's right to declare war. I'm certain that if the congress felt we needed to go to war to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians, then Paul would prosecute the war in a manner that would achieve success. He wouldn't like it, but he would see it as his job as chief executive to execute the will of Congress.