Ron Paul has many good ideas relating to smaller, less intrusive government and lower taxes. He’s got some not-so-good ideas, including opposition to some free trade agreements. Whatever else they may be, they are not libertarian.
Apart from the good and not-so-good, he’s also got absolutely idiotic ideas about our place in the world and the nature of our enemies.
He’s basically an apologist for Islamic terror, saying we brought it on ourselves. He also says the world would be better off if Israel did not exist. Funny how he’s never said (to my knowledge, at least) that the world would be better off without marvelous fonts of human wisdom and liberty such as, in no particular order, they’re all despicable from a libertarian perspective: Saudi Arabia, Communist China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc. etc.
The list is long, and Paul worries about an “American Empire?” What drugs has he been self-prescribing?
The short version? He’s on Israel Double Standard Time. There’s usually one reason for this sort of double standard: he’s an anti-Semite. He’s also got unsavory ties to Islamists, or, at best, turns a blind eye to their fund-raising here in America. And, from left (right?) field, accusing Michelle Bachmann of “hating Muslims?”
Taken together, Ron Paul is not fit to be on the same platform as the other Republican candidates. His supporters likely don’t know, or don’t care about his unsavory aspects. They are fixated on someone who is, indeed, different. Which is a version of “hope and change:” words without content. “Different” can be good, bad, or indifferent. In Paul’s case, different would be bad.
We are nominating a president, a leader who can protect and defend liberty at home, and abroad. And a president who knows, unlike the incumbent, who our friends are. And, at least as important, who our enemies are.