I actually like Ron Paul. He's sincere, and a Washington outsider, who speaks from the heart, and from outside the two-party system that is actually one system owned by lobbyists.
Many of his positions regarding healthcare, border security, and opposing amnesty for illegals, appeal to my populist tendencies.
It wasn't until I saw him interviewed, separate from any of the debates, that I could get a feel for what he stands for.
One area I disagree with him on is his notion that American foreign policy is the cause of terrorist attacks, and that if we pull out of the middle east, they'll just leave us alone.
Pulling out of the middle east won't save either us or Europe from islamic aggression. And islamic aggression began well before the U.S. ever had troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Iraq. It's just ignoring reality to buy into that rationalization.
Like Buchanan, he sees foreign wars as not vital to U.S. national security, and at least in the short term, that would save money that would otherwise be spent on costly wars, and costly peacetime overseas deployments.
But I would argue that preventing hostile powers from seizing control of the world's oil supply, and tripling the cost of oil, or depriving us of it altogether, as a vital U.S. national interest.
