[ForOurFuture]

(l)ibertarians, and for that matter Freepers and conservatives, quibbling with and even denegrating Ron Paul strikes me as similar to someone who wins $100,000 in the lottery and complains that they didn't win $1,000,000, or a 16 year old who complains that the brand new car his parents bought him isn't the right color. It would be impossible to come up with a candidate who better articulates and more genuinely represents the ideals of liberty, limited government, and conservative constitutionalism if you went into a laboratory and tried to create him from scratch.

And yet still Ron Paul isn't good enough. His position on Iraq blinds pro-occupation conservatives to his other positions and renders him merely a crazy, demented kook. And, of course, libertarians are confronted with the most significant and impactful national libertarian campaign ever conducted and have the gall to turn their back on it and say, "But his position on ------- isn't libertarian enough."

[ontap]

I have nothing against Ron Paul but it’s a little disingenuous for a libertarian to run as a republican and have his supporters preach to us about his qualifications. If he were being honest he would be running to get the libertarian nomination. But then he wouldn’t be on national TV would he.

[samtheman]

His position on Iraq blinds pro-occupation conservatives to his other positions and renders him merely a crazy, demented kook.

"Pro-occupation conservatives"?

How about patriotic Americans backing our troops as they man the front lines of WWIII, you crazy, demented kook.

[MNJohnnie]

Ron Paul is mentally incompetent. Too arrogantly stupid to realize that the world cannot simply be wished away because his personal emotional response to conflict is to want to hide under his bed and wish the bad men simply go away.

He isn’t even remotely in the ball park of Conservative thought. He is a fringe wack job. People are so busy being mindlessly angry with everything they have simply blinded themselves to the fundamental unworkability of the Political Dogma according to Der Paul.

The problem here is too may people kid themselves that they can ignore all of Paul’s fleas because he happens to cater to their emotional dogma on this or that issue.

Too bad for the 100%ers, elections are not one by the most dogmatically pure but by the candidate best able to forge a working political coalition.

See their are not enough of you 100%ers to elect anyone. You fundementally inablity to accept anyone who is NOT 100% pure as yourselves, renders you politically irrelevent and impotent.

[DugwayDuke]

“And yet still Ron Paul isn’t good enough. His position on Iraq blinds pro-occupation conservatives to his other positions and renders him merely a crazy, demented kook.”

I don’t believe Ron Paul is a ‘crazy, demented kook’. I agree with the author that Paul is a very clever politician trying to have things both ways. I believe his supporters have drank too much of the Ron Paul kool-aid and need to seriously examine his positions on issues.

He claims to be against the war in Iraq because we ‘didn’t declare war but voted to invade Afghanistan without declaring war. (But he really wanted us to hire pirates instead.)

He believes abortion is wrong but opposes a law to stop it and would allow the legalization of murder of an unborn in some states and making it a crime of murder in another.

He believes pork barrel spending is un-Constitutional but still asks for several million a year for his district.

Now tell me again why I should support this man.