Let me start by saying I agree with Ron Paul on virtually all of his platforms, domestically. But when it comes to Paul's ideas of foreign policy, a policy of non-intervention, a policy of letting the chips fall where they may, is an even greater blunder than invading Iraq with no clear post-war plan with too few troops.
Free Constitution fisks my post supporting Paul. I'm not going to do a detailed rebuttal because I just don't have the time, but I will come up with something general over the next day or so, dealing with the specific concerns of national security, foreign policy and overseas military deployments.
Suffice it to say we have been given an opportunity--unprecedented in my lifetime--to select a man who actually believes what he says. Because some among us reject that for the myriad of objections they raise, I believe based on current trends that the GOP nominee will be Rudy Giuliani, or possibly Mitt Romney.
If that's what pans out, even though he's said he has no interest in doing so, I will urge Rep. Paul to run as a third party candidate. As friend Russ Howard points out, if Ross Perot can get almost 20% of the vote, there's no reason why Paul--who actually stands for something--shouldn't be able to compete in a 3-way race. It's not my ideal scenario, but it beats the alternative.
Anyway, go read what Stan has to say and consider his arguments. Ain't no law says you have to agree with me...