Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We’re Just So in Love With Him That We’re Not Paying Attention

173 Comments »

1. So far I’m intrigued by Ron Paul because of his views on foreign policy and civil liberties, but I am still skeptical for the very reasons you’ve mentioned.

   I figure his more awkward (or perhaps troubling) views on topics such as separation of church and state or funding of public education will fade away once he becomes Ron Paul the Populist and not Ron Paul the Washington Outsider.

   McCain’s campaign has been hopelessly depressing and futile from the start, Giuliani isn’t really a conservative and is running solely on the so-called title of “America’s Mayor”, the aww shucks campaigns of Huckabee and Brownback have failed to realize that even evangelicals aren’t gullible anymore to pandering, and Romney is just…creepy as sin.

   And Fred Thompson has been the big tease reluctant to reveal that he’s got nothing to say that hasn’t already been said by the schmucks already in the race.

   I don’t see Paul flip-flopping so much as refining some of his earlier statements - this guy is savvy as hell and in spite of the media’s treatment of him comes across as a legitimate alternative rather than some of the candidates on the Left (like Gravel or Kucinich) who seem eccentric just for eccentricism’s sake.

   The Obama frenzy is already waning (he’ll probably eventually align himself with Hillary, he’s proven himself green in the debates, he doesn’t have the balls to go on Fox News, he’s inexperienced, even the Obama girl on YouTube turned out to be some skank who didn’t know anything about him that was hired by some aspiring hack/marketing firm) and has been overtaken by Paul.

   The Dems have been a joke ever since taking office last November making these symbolic resolutions that don’t mean a damn thing; and even with overwhelming public support they’re impotent.

   Even as I feel reluctant to fly the Ron Paul flag high and proudly, I salute you on having that bumper sticker.

   I thought it was funny as hell the other day whenever I was parked illegally for about 6 hours…Sure as hell I’d get a ticket…

   I walked towards my vehicle, saw some vague piece of paper under the windshield wiper…Instantly sure I’d be contributing another 10 or 20 bucks to City Hall…

   Only to find a Ron Paul brochure when I’m the last person that needs to be informed about this guy.

   Have faith, because I think all of this collective enthusiasm will lead to something or other; if not directly his election to public office at least an awakening of people tired of the current system.

   And it’s nice to read an articulate RP supporter online; stuff like “I”ll definately vote for you Mr.Paul becaause you support weed and prolife!!!” on YouTube and MySpace is discouraging at times.

   Comment by Phil — 9/11/2007 @ 10:24 pm

2. I think that you should try to re-write your article replacing the collectivist we, with the individualist I. I personally agree with with Ron Pauls position on abortion, which is nothing more than legalized murder, and Roe V. Wade the action of of an activist court. The abortion issue should be decided on the State level not the national level, murder is not a federal crime and neither should abortion be a federal crime, but no where in the constitution does it say that woman and abortion doctors have the right to murder the unborn.

   The example that you gave claiming that Ron Paul does not support the Separation of Church and State is a distortion from the camp of people the believe that freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion. The idea of Religion expressed in the constitution was not to ban the expression of religion from the public sphere, but also to not sponsor through the State like the Church of England was a State Sponsored institution. Ron Paul even in the example that you gave is not advocating the creation of a national church, but rather a peaceful co-existence with religion.

   Yes he’s against the Federal government tampering with education because there is no express constitutional authority for the Federal Government to meddle in Education. Just because the Federal Government is out of the subsidation of Student loans, does not mean that there would no longer be student loans or scholarships, they would just no longer be subsidized by the Federal Government, but their would be nothing preventing the State from helping students obtain loans.

   Of course, he’s not for national healthcare, because there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes congress to create something like national health care. The individual States could create thier own version of a health insurance program, but a national program would make people too dependant on the Federal Government, and would not provide options for individuals who want something different than what the government offers.

   Global warming is a scam and there is plenty of evidence that contrificts the assumptions by the IPCC. Since the guy does have a serious scientific background in Science being a medical doctor and all I think that he is alittle more credible than someone like Al Gore who has no back ground in science.

   All in all there is nothing illogical about Dr. Pauls views if you read the constitution and are familar with the principles that lead to its creation. Dr. Paul is not a modern democrat, he is very much a Republican who believes in the rule of law binding the powers of the Federal Government with the constitution of the United States. If you believe that a politician’s only principles should be popular opinion and getting re-elected, then Ron Paul and the libertarians in general are not for you go back to the democrats, but if you believe in freedom from government, liberty to live your life the way that you want, low taxes and minimal foriegn policy stay in Ron Paul’s camp, because I assure you that Dr. Paul will not change.

   Comment by Johnnyb — 9/11/2007 @ 10:41 pm

3. I don’t think you actually provide any evidence suggesting that Ron Paul is against the separation of Church and State. The quote you present does show that he is a profoundly religious man, but that he understands the different role churches and the government play. A government’s proper role, as you and Ron Paul have both eloquently noted, is to maximize freedom and not to legislate morality. Churches, on the other hand, attempt to suggest (but not forcibly mandate) a moral compass. I am not a Christian, but I also agree with Dr. Paul that one’s moral compass must come from outside the government (be it the church, philosophy, family, or community), and I believe Dr. Paul has been very clear and explicit in recognizing this difference.

   Simply put, there is a world of difference between what one legally can do, and what one morally should do. Legally, I can protest against inter-racial marriage; morally, I should not. Since the government can only tell you what is legal, it is obvious that some outside entity must provide guidance as to what is moral.

   Secondly, federally controlled education has been a mess. He’s not suggesting that we should let the poor fend for themselves, he just believes that we should return control of education to those with the most vested interest in its efficacy: individuals, communities, and states.

   Third, of course he’s against national health-care: it’s a horrible idea. I don’t have the time to go into all the reasons why, but the fact that it’s unconstitutional, provides little to no accountability, and strains our already thinly stretched tax dollars are a good starting point.

   Finally, he has said many times that he is against abortion, but doesn’t think that it’s the role of the federal government to intervene. Constitutionally, as president, he’d have less power to prohibit abortions than you or I.

   I think one of the main difficulties people have with Ron Paul is separating his personal views from his political views. I don’t really care if personally he thinks it’s immoral to eat meat (he doesn’t just using it as an example), as long as he recognizes that the government has no right to force me to do the same.

   Comment by Shaneal Manek — 9/11/2007 @ 10:56 pm

4. First off, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter (though, since 2000 or so I’ve taken note of him as the lone libertarian in congress, and do respect him for his record there), mostly because I disagree with him on the issues you’ve pointed out, and others (like his infatuation with the gold standard, which as an economics student, I see as harmful to the economy in many ways.) As far as the issues go, sometimes you have to weigh in whether or not you actually agree with the candidate or not. I generally agree with Paul’s stance on civil liberties and the war, but I do not embrace his radical libertarianism.

   Second, I think Ron Paul supporters should seriously consider what a Ron Paul presidency would actually look like. Given his history in the House of Representatives, would he continue his Dr. No reputation and veto legislation he disagrees with based on his restrictive view of the constitution? Assuming Democrats hold power in the congress, for example, would viable health care legislation be vetoed by President Ron Paul?

   On the flip side, much of his radical libertarian prescriptions are unlikely to gain much support from congress. His ideas are far more radical than Bush’s social security privatization plan, which flopped. It seems like Ron Paul has the potential to be the ultimate lame-duck president, from the second he got into office. With everything wrong with the current administration, can America afford that?

   I’d assume he’d want to get some things done. Would he simply appoint people in cabinet positions that would purposely fail to do their department’s job (especially with the regulatory agencies) to get what he wants done? Would he use executive orders to change policies to his liking? That’s a terrible way to run a government, too. Ron Paul supporters MUST ask these questions. Otherwise, he’s just making promises he has absolutely no way of keeping.

   I think Ron Paul has benefited too much from internet hype and the popularity of effective propaganda (9-11 truth stuff, Aaron Russo’s freedom to fascism, etc.) that oversimplify issues and exaggerate the extent to which our liberties are being taken away. I had a lengthy discussion today with a Ron Paul supporter about these things. She seemed to be more on the left than a libertarian, and found her agreeing with most of what I said. I recommended Kucinich. I think everyone would benefit by evaluating their own political opinions. If you’re a libertarian, Ron Paul’s your best bet. If you’re on the political left, I prefer Kucinich (and actually, he and Gravel are actually more libertarian in some respects, given their place on the political compass). Other democrats are also campaigning on the environment and health care, and are for getting us out of this war too.

   Many words. Apologies. -e

   Comment by E — 9/11/2007 @ 10:57 pm

5. Is contrifict an actual verb? Like the act of writing fan fiction about the Contra controversy? Contrificting the adventures of Ollie North and Ronnie Reagan and his pet chimp Bonzo?

   Jesus.

   This Johnnyb is a damn jackass and leaves me feeling cheerful that I haven’t fully signed on to this whole Ron Paul thing yet.

   Comment by Phil — 9/11/2007 @ 11:01 pm

6. You’re right … there’s quite a bit to disagree with in some of his positions. On the other hand, I’m perfectly willing to support some of those bits. I’m not a fan of the federal government reaching into daily life. Education is one of many ways they do that. Local governments are in a much better position to determine the needs of their community when it comes to education. If you eliminate the funding at the federal level, that frees up money to be collected on the local level (property taxes etc).

   Where the federal government is meant to shine is disputes between the states and internationally. I may be the oddest person in the world in my thoughts about politics, but I’d be happy to have a very conservative federal government (in the classic sense of conservative) with increasingly liberal governments as things reach closer to home. What’s good for California, might not be good for Illinois or Arkansas. Good for New York might not make Utah happy.

   There were some very wise things done in the design of the federal government, and, unfortunately, many of them have been dismantled. The House was meant to carry the will of the people to the federal government while the senate was meant to carry the will of the states. … but now I’m going to stop before wandering too far off topic.

   Comment by Charlie — 9/11/2007 @ 11:10 pm

7. i’ve always been wary of ron paul for the above reasons personaly i think peoples support is better placed with mike gravel all the positives of ron paul without the negitives you’ve mentioned.

   Comment by Rob — 9/11/2007 @ 11:26 pm

8. [...] Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate dmiessler.com | Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We’re Just So in Love With Him That We’… [...]

   Pingback by Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate - FileFront Gaming Forums — 9/11/2007 @ 11:48 pm

9. Concerning education:

    I've gone to school in the West Coast, East Coast and the Southeast. I can tell you that all the text books are lies. Most of the history in schools is wrong and Government mandated. You'd be better off home schooling and using the internet. And if you fear that and think you can't teach someone what you should have, supposedly, already learned, you proved how ignorant you are and you have failed as a human being.
   

   So where does this great Government subsidized education come in…

   Comment by vega — 9/12/2007 @ 12:22 am

10. Whoops. I agree with his view on points 2-4. On the other points, yes, he’s pretty crazy.

    As for healthcare… in the current atmosphere of our legal system and the overall effect of our healthcare systems, yes, federal healthcare is both inevitable and the correct course. But it’s not something we want our government taking care of, ultimately, and we should move towards that ideal.

    In my opinion, public education does much more harm than good. Primary school is abysmal; colleges are becoming less and less useful and relevant. And again, it’s ultimately not something we want in the hands of government.

    What’s next, letting the government run our postal system? This is starting to get out of hand guys.

    Comment by Raison de Calcul — 9/12/2007 @ 12:27 am

11. Phil, I appreciate you pointing out the fact that I made a typo, D is right next to F on my keyboard, and since I generally do not look at my keyboard while I’m typing does lead to an occasaional miss. YOu did miss the fact that I once used ‘their’ when I obviously should have used ‘there’. Please excuse the fact that I am not a professional typist, nor was I an English major in college.

    If you are looking at Ron Paul as a liberal democrat who happens to be running on the Republican ticket, then you are doomed to be sorely disappointed. If you dislike free market economics, buy like the idea of a big all powerful national government managing all sorts of minute aspects of your private life, then Ron Paul is not the candidate for you.

    If you think that murdering the unborn is a constitutional right, and the tax payers should pay for it through a socialized health care program then Ron Paul is not the candidate for you.

    If you like the idea of a limited Federal Government based on the Constitution of the United States then Ron Paul is your guy. If you think that the Constitution is more of a suggestion that can be followed or ignored based on popular opinion, then Ron Paul is not your guy.

    Ever since the New Deal the Constitution has been existing in exile and the government of the United States followed its natural inclination to become a large centralized empire bending to the will of whatever popular opinion might be at the time. Today we have the New Republicans who believe in Big Government Nationalism and social conservatism, while on the otherside we have liberal socialists who do not believe in the rights of an individual to manage their own personal affairs in any meaningful way and want to deprive the States and local communities of their own sense of self determination while passing a sweeping social agenda from Washington. Individual Liberty cannot exist under either the Republicans or the Democrats, and already the institutions established over the last 70 years in the united States have become so overbearing that they deserve to be dynamited and purged from the American System because they do not work and they are unconstitutional and unAmerican, and serve to do absolutely nothing but make us less prosperous and less free.

    If we do not turn from the present course offered by the Socialist Democrats and Nationalist Big Government Republicans then were are headed for a fate no better than the Nazis or Commies that we fought in the last century. The idea of liberty is already fatally sick and will soon be dead, and I personally do not know whether I will laugh or cry, when this nation finally crashes and burns.

    Ron Paul is the sole salvation from our ultimate destruction, and the only path to a return to a constitutional Republican Government. For those of you who have read and understand Ayn Rand, Ron Paul is John Galt, and liberty is the only solution.

    P.S. Please excuse my typos, spelling and gramatical errors.

    Comment by Johnnyb — 9/12/2007 @ 12:31 am

12. Daniel,

    Interesting article. One thing to remember which might put your worries to rest is that if (and i hope when) Dr. Paul is elected 44th President of the United States, he wouldn’t be able to will all of his ideas into law. Even Bush hasn’t got his way the whole time! As Dr. Paul is a strong believer in the Constitution and the balance of Power / 3 branches of Government, Dr. Paul would work with Congress, and listen to the American people unlike our current Administration.

    Taking one of your points for example: we have had several pro-life Presidents since roe vs. wade and yet it hasn’t been overturned.

    Your comment that he may be “too extreme to be president” is in fact counter to both libertarion and Independent thinking. [I'm assuming you are a libertarian/independent] Our corrupt two-party system is great at producing watered-down candidates without extreme thinking, for that matter without thinking at all!

    If you could change Dr. Paul’s beliefs to match yours or mine or anyone else’s beliefs exactly, he would still be considered by others to be extreme or in other words, too idealistic to be President.

    The upside of Dr. Paul (smaller federal government, flat tax, smart foreign policy) greatly outweighs your concerns compared to who else is running for Office in 2008.

    One of my favorite quotes about Dr. Paul, “You’re working for the most honest man in Congress.” That was John McCain speaking to Kent Snyder in 1988.

    Can you imagine having an honest President for once!

    I for one am fed up with our american-anglo trash Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? monarchy. Let’s pass a law no more Bush’s or Clinton’s can be President.

    Comment by Aaron — 9/12/2007 @ 12:50 am

13. If you don’t want the government interfering with education then that’s one thing, but stopping the money and expecting people “individuals and communities” to pay for it, isn’t that merely going to force the middle class to put their children into expensive independent schools and leave poorer families to scrounge for charity scholarships?

    Comment by Hugo — 9/12/2007 @ 1:09 am

14. Hugo, it will be like it was back in 70s before there was a Department of Education. There were plenty of public schools back then and they were doing a lot better than the public schools today are.

    University Education would still be funded by the State and individual student tuition.

    Really nothing much would change except the interest rate on student loans would go up, and more control of the schools would be returned to the community and the State.

    Comment by Johnnyb — 9/12/2007 @ 1:18 am

15. He may be racist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronpaul#Newsletterarticle_controversy

    Those comments ended up in his personal newsletter, but he claims he did not make them. There is a good chance that he is denying he made them because he knows they are political suicide at the national level.

    Comment by Bob — 9/12/2007 @ 1:27 am

16. Wouldn’t matter if he personally was racist, which I doubt he is, because the law is supposed to be race blind so the most that he would or could try to do is undo the reverse racism under affirmative action which should be undone any way.

    Comment by Johnnyb — 9/12/2007 @ 1:32 am

17. The danger with racism is that it often manifests itself implicitly. For example, his alleged comment:

    “black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

    indicates that he has racist opinions that could change his political beliefs. While there are white young criminals, his opinion that black youth are somehow different would bias his view.

    After eight years of a president who has ignored black America, I want change.

    Comment by Bob — 9/12/2007 @ 1:43 am

18. You need a rewrite - “the federal government” does not equal “government”.

    When Ron Paul says he doesn’t want “the federal government” doing something, what are his opinions on it being done by state governments? For example, the federal government doesn’t provide elementary education at all today (there are grants, but they’re in the low single digits for most school budgets). So is he an extreme libertarian in that no government should be providing elementary education, or just a federalist in that the federal government shouldn’t?

    Comment by Philo — 9/12/2007 @ 1:45 am

19. Bob, it might matter if he was running for a state office such as a DA, but as President he would have no authority to enforce state criminal codes.

    Besides, Ron Paul is the most consistent politician that I have ever heard in my life and that statement sounds so out of character for him, and violates a fundamental principle in libertarian thought in that all people are EQUAL under the law.

    Since there is nothing in Ron Paul’s history that would suggest that he supports such a view and he has publically denied that he made that statement, then I think that we have every reason to believe that Ron Paul is telling us the truth. His character is such that he tends to defend his beliefs even if they are not popular amongst conservatives or even his fellow libertarians, such as his stand on abortion as most Libertarians are pro-choice, and only a minority of us, myself included, are pro-life.

    Comment by Johnnyb — 9/12/2007 @ 1:53 am

20. Like some of your other responders I agree with Ron Paul’s views on all of these and think that some people just don’t understand them/him yet. However what drew me to Ron Paul and Keeps me supporting him is his constant defense of the Constitution, our Rights, and Liberties. Most people don’t seem to realize that we or loosing these and that most candidates will only continue to take them away… will continue going the same direction as BushCo.

    Right now you can still voice your opinion and concerns about most things (Bush did put out that Executive Order to silence those against the war), but just think how it would be if you couldn’t speak out about such things as “global warming”. Even though Ron Paul himself believes that it’s “overblown” he wouldn’t try to silence those that think it’s a major concern.

    As far as the Ds and Rs… Ron is the best. However, I realize that some people out there vote by the party and not by the issues, which I personally believe is a stupid thing to do (note: the act is stupid, not the person) but if you feel you must vote Dem. then it should be Kucinich or Gravel.

    Most importantly though, EVERYONE should do their own research. This doesn’t mean believe or disbelieve everything as soon as you hear/see it, it means research EVERYTHING. Research the positive because you want to be sure you’re not just spouting someone else’s opinions or propaganda or the candidates “spin”, etc. Research the negative for all the same reasons but also because you might just learn something you didn’t know.

    Here’s an example… I thought that all the talk about the CFR was just a bunch of fear mongering that had little basis in fact and I was going to research it, get all the facts down, and show how our government doesn’t follow their suggestions and that just because you’re in the government and a member doesn’t mean you’re working towards one world government, NWO, NAU, etc.

    Instead I found out that all of it is true, sad, but true. I also found out, and am still finding out, that there are more “organizations” like the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) working towards the same goals. Now I’m called a “conspiracy theorist”… there comes a point when you are given so much evidence that you have no choice but to drop the “theorist”. Anyone who has really done their research can’t say that it’s a theory anymore…. and most of the candidates are members… Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and potential candidate Al Gore. In my opinion, being a member of the CFR is just another huge mark against an already damaging history and policy for those candidates.

    Call me what you want, but time will tell whether I’m right or wrong, and I’d rather be safe than sorry any day. :)

    Comment by LibertyLady — 9/12/2007 @ 1:55 am

21. Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We’re Just So in Love With Him That We’re Not Paying Attention…

    This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….

    Trackback by Support this story on Stirrdup — 9/12/2007 @ 2:03 am

22. You need to research Ron Paul with a little more veracity. Most of your arguments are specious and ,if I didn’t know any better, suspicious. This almost seems like a non invasive “hit piece”. Be careful the waters that you tread. Most Paul supporters are very informed. You words depict socialist tendencies so I would consider that you stay with the Democrooks or RepuliCONS. It doesn’t matter since they are the same anyway.

    Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that can win for America.

    Comment by sandman — 9/12/2007 @ 2:19 am

23. I whish there would be a way to elect a trio as presidents… Paul + Gravel + Kucinich for presidents!

    Comment by JD — 9/12/2007 @ 2:22 am

24. Your bit on loans caught my eye–surely you only mean federal loans for tuition. Have you considered that this will (finally) put a downward pressure on tuition? If students are only able to obtain reasonable loans from banks, institutions will have to take a long overdue look at the insane amounts a piece of sheepskin fetches.

    Ron Paul didn’t have to get a loan to go to college because he was able to work his way through. What a concept!

    Comment by Ian — 9/12/2007 @ 2:24 am

25. Maybe you’re the one that’s got flawed politics? Personally I see what you are complaining about as yet more advantages to Ron Paul’s candidacy. Perhaps someday my girlfriend’s dreams of owning an orphanage would be more realistic if Ron Paul cut out a lot of the bureaucracy and regulation that would make it a pipe dream. Right now the United States spends ridiculous amounts of money on education, both public education as well as federal student aid for college, and the end result is piss poor. If our current system worked at all we wouldn’t be a nation of warmongering overconsumers. The politics, behavior, and health of our nation are all a sign that the vast majority of college graduates are still poorly educated, because education leads to smart, healthy, pacifist, liberal adults instead of stubborn, fat, warmongering, conservative adults.

    Comment by Dennis — 9/12/2007 @ 2:37 am

26. Well…the passage above re: religion does not in fact mean that he’s not in favor of separation of church and state. It sounds like he believes that the role of religion could be to continue offering social services, which is in keeping with his ideas that the government should not enforce charitable donation. I would have to hear more.

    Then, you list a bunch of the prototypical libertarian stances as more flaws. Ummm…it sounds like you’re not a libertarian. And let’s be clear: he for eliminating the FEDERAL education system, which would shift the responsibility back to the states.

    I’m not for national health care either. I think that the idea of healthcare as being necessary is part of the problem. Why can’t people afford to pay for medical services? That is the problem. The AMA and the argue companies are getting rich in their government-enforced monopoly. They’ve spent far too long getting rich and not being concerned with our actual wellness.

    Roe v. Wade? The idea of abortion is a complicated one, and I feel that people should have the right to get one if they choose, but to pretend that it is simple is just ludicrous. Paul, as a young doctor, attended an abortion. The baby was taken out of the mother and prepared to be thrown into the trash. The baby cried. Abortion is complicated.

    As for global warming, I do find this one disturbing, but I’d like to think, given his clarity and honesty, that he will indeed allow himself to be swayed as more scientific evidence comes in about how all of this projects into the future.

    Comment by Ben — 9/12/2007 @ 2:40 am

27. Kudos for bravely saying what no one else will. I believe that Paul is more popular for his sincerity than his platform. Of course, there was a time when McCain was seen as the sincere candidate. . .

    I noticed in Paul’s Google speech that he has a very warped sense of history. He claims America’s first colleges were all private (as a graduate of UNC - - over 200 years old now - - I know that is not true) and more amazingly, that no American ever starved under a true ‘free market’ economy. Maybe if Gulianni ever presents Paul with a counter-reading list, he’ll add “Grapes of Wrath.” Paul also claimed that the market alone ended child labor; this is an outright lie. Child labor laws ended child labor.

    Ironically, Paul seems to take the lessons of the failures of the USSR and then repeats the same fundamental mistake. The problem with Communism wasn’t that government never works, but rather that blindly optimistic idealism never works. The Paul Utopia relies on a notion that putting the greed of the individual over the rights of the whole will somehow foster a vast system of charities and consumer groups. This is absurd and lacking of any historical reference.

    Environmental laws are a shining example of how the libertarian utopia would fail. Some percentage of Americans will always buy the cheapest good, no matter how unethical. If the vast majority thinks that polution should be limited, why should their health and safety be so easily compromised by the poor purchasing choices of the minority? Does Paul really believe consumers will do extensive research into every single product they buy? Sounds incredibly unrealistic and inefficient. This is just one example where libertarians are so enamoured with axing legislation they just simply believe things will work out without any foundation. As Radiohead once put it, “Just ’cause you feel it, doesn’t mean it’s so.”

    While the Federal Government may indeed need to be trimmed down in some areas, the fact remains that the reason we have Social Security, labor laws, the EPA, the IRS, etc. is due to a direct need for an active government role in these areas. And although it bites libertarians in the ass, a well regulated market works a lot better than the economic anarchy Paul endorses.

    I would love for Paul to please explain to me why a government the size of the U.S. cannot operate effectively but one the size of California can. Again, Paul would do himself a great favor by reading the history books. Is Paul against the Louisiana Purchase? Let’s face it, the Civil War effectively ended the notion that States’ rights trumped the Federal government. There is a reason that the New Deal policies remain incredibly popular - - because they work!

    Mad props for Ron Paul in that he appears to say what he really thinks. It is great to have a candidate who is not beholden to special interest groups. But that one quality alone does not a great President make.

    Comment by The Heelspider — 9/12/2007 @ 2:46 am

28. Great post. I completely agree with the statement that we’re too infatuated with his stances on foreign policy and freedom that we ignore how he’s still a little crazy. For some of his eccentricities, like doing away with Federal student loans and national health care, I don’t think the criticisms are warranted: He mentions in the Google interview that idealogically he’d do away with them, but that these aren’t the most pressing issues. It shows some tempering of sanity.

    With respect to the global climate change, first I have to note that it’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation about it here on the internets. I could say stuff like “I’ve got half a Ph.D. in chemical engineering so ya gotta believe me” and give a good hour-long lecture on the science and people will still hold up the “it’s debatable!” card. That said, I find Ron’s holding up of the aforementioned card to be a bit disturbing. It’s good politically, because he admits he not informed. Those of us with a little sense realize, however, that global climate change isn’t something to be “believed in,” but is a fact, and is a fact that the leader of the world’s largest contributor of greenhouse gases needs to understand.

    Ok, this comment is getting a little long, so in short: I like how there are people out there really thinking about the candidates! It would behoove everyone to check out the Google interview. Also, it would behoove everyone if more candidates opened themselves up to such interviews so we could get a better idea what they really think. Paul vs. Obama 2007!

    Comment by Eric — 9/12/2007 @ 2:57 am

29. Yes, Ron Paul is seriously flawed as a candidate. I wouldn’t vote for him in a general election.

    But all the other Republican candidates ALSO have all the flaws that you mention. They already don’t believe in the separation of Church and State, also aren’t for federally supported public education or college loans, also aren’t for national health care, also against Abortion, also don’t believe that the evidence for man-made global warming is convincing.

    The reason that people like Ron Paul, flawed as he is, is that going into the general election, there’s a 50/50 chance that the candidate that will win will be a Republican. We’d rather that person be the Republican who’s the LEAST crazy.

    Ron Paul is the Lesser of 11 Evils.

    Comment by Brian Boyko — 9/12/2007 @ 3:00 am

30. In your quote he didn’t say he wants the government to support religion, he just said he likes religion. Big difference. Given his interest in shrinking government’s role in everything, he basically wants to keep church and state as separate as possible.

    No, he doesn’t want federally-funded this that and the other. That’s what makes him a libertarian. It’s balanced by radically lower taxes. But before worrying about it too much, remember he has to get all that by Congress. Foreign policy is where his biggest impact will be.

    Global warming, yeah, I don’t like that part either. But he said something in one his interviews that made me feel better about it: “But if global warming is real, well the best thing we can do about it is what I want to do anyway: Stop subsidizing the oil industry, and stop using our military to protect our oil supplies around the world, which keeps the price of oil artificially low and makes alternative fuels unable to compete.”

    Comment by joe — 9/12/2007 @ 3:15 am

31. [...] From dmiessler.com: First off, let me just say that I am a major Ron Paul supporter. I’ve blogged about him, spammedpromoted him to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car (I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer. [...]

    Pingback by Donklephant » Blog Archive » “Ron Paul Is Seriously Flawed As A Candidate” — 9/12/2007 @ 3:18 am

32. Agree entirely with Johnnyb except for global warming. The left has always had extremist who paint the condition and future of our environment in the worst possible light. That said, I’m pretty confident they are not completely wrong either. The right in this country are way to laid back about our impact on the environment or the damage we are doing to it.

    Comment by ALR — 9/12/2007 @ 3:22 am

33. His views have always been different and promote change. We have lived one way our whole lives and it’s hard to believe we can live any other way. We have depended on our government to run our lives and hope they take care of us. There was nothing wrong with that until they turned on us and figured out ways to get anything they want from us. Just another fear that has been instilled in us by society itself ( government may have played a part in that too ). We can continue being sheep and let them do what they want. There are plenty of other candidates that will give you the same of what we have now. Of course, I mean empty promises. I think we all want real change. It may be hard to believe that his ideas may actually work ( again ) because of a fear of losing what big government “Gives us”. I’ve questioned the same things too. Until I took the time to better understand what he plans on doing. I’m glad this blog was posted because I’m sure others feel the same way and I think there have been excellent replies to help clarify any concerns.

    Comment by Ozzy — 9/12/2007 @ 3:25 am

34. There are many changes that need to be made. Even Ron Paul understands you can’t make them all at once in a big hurry. People have gotten so used to the Federal government programs and financing that they don’t understand how much more efficient things can be when administrated at the local level. If big gov’t stopped taking nearly 50% of your income you’d be surprised how much funding the state can have. As for medical coverage? Well, I’m no “kid”. In fact I’m getting close to being a “senior” and most of my life I’ve spent without coverage. I made slightly better then minimum wage (by about 50 cents) and I wasn’t eligible for Federal coverage because of it, all while being a single parent of two boys. I don’t think much of government health care because if you work you don’t qualify. Why reward someone for not working? I think that tthe Federal government handling it is the problem with the affordability in the first place. As to seperation of church and state, well RP has also said that that is why he doesn’t like openly making a big deal about his own faith, too often it’s used in the politial arena so I think he would respect that one. Also, many of the other candidates declare they’d like R v W to be overturned too.

    I think the slow implementation of these changes is the key. I can remember back to when I was a kid and many things were taken care of by the states. We had a much better society then then we do now. No, not everything was perfect and it never will be no matter what you do but i sure would like to have the freedom to breath and speak again.

    I guess my most major concern would be the transition period to help relieve people’s fears. People are most afraid of what they don’t understand and most of the people who would remember the days of state’s rights type government are now gone. JMHO

    5

    Comment by Elizabeth — 9/12/2007 @ 3:43 am

35. From your stances on the issues in your article, it sounds like you’d be a better fit with somebody like Kucinich rather than Ron Paul. He’s just as rabidly anti-war, supports individual freedoms (though perhaps not as vigorously as Paul), has called for universal national health care. Though I don’t know his stances on education (I’m a Canadian so I can’t vote), I would be stunned if he called for any kind of reduction in federal spending in that arena. Methinks your more liberal than libertarian… might as well make the jump explicitly.

    Comment by Fred — 9/12/2007 @ 3:44 am

36. All the reasons you stated as reasons he’s to far out there are exactly the reasons I will be voting for him. Less government means less government you can’t just pick and choose. Free market will fill the gaps for everything your talking about. And if you don’t think the founding father’s meant for Christianity to be front and center as the primary method of morality in this country your just wrong.

    Comment by Gomerlicious — 9/12/2007 @ 3:46 am

37. “He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State”

    Incorrect and misleading. He believes religion can coexist with government. freedom of religion. Not being a part of the government.

    “He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education”

    Yeah, he would leave it up to the states to decide funding for education.

    “He’s Not For National Health Care”

    Let me ask you, do you really believe Medicare or Medicaid is working? If so, I have story I want to sell.

    “He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA”

    What makes you think states cannot have these groups? You need to realize that FDA is really a big corporation- it is being paid off by big industry like pharmaceutical companies.

    “He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned”

    VERY misleading and faulty. Ron Paul is pro-life but believes the federal government has no business in making such decisions about abortion. It is up to the states to decide on abortion. I think this is fair.

    “He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing”

    Well, there are some scientists too who don’t believe in it. Are they schills? Regardless, he would curb CO2 emissions by regulating Big Oil and their influence around the world. And in terms of pollution, he would effectively help clean it up due to the concept of private property- say a river or some sort of land mass runs through your property. You see that it is polluted- you have every right to go to court a sue to clean it up.

    One last note, I am a registered democrat and pro-choice and believe in Global Warming. Yes, Ron Paul has some flaws but you over exaggerate them and do not put them in perspective.

    Are you sure this blog is not a hit piece?

    Comment by Ken — 9/12/2007 @ 4:03 am

38. You know, I agree with Ron Paul on most of those things. In fact the only two that I do not agree with is global warming and abortion. But I do believe the federal government should step out of abortion and leave it to be a state issue. That is the nature of a true conservative is to think the government should get out of peoples lives and and leave issues to be solved by the states. If I did not already know these things this would serve to make me like him more.

    Comment by Ken — 9/12/2007 @ 4:06 am

39. He just thinks things like education would be better served at the local or state level. There wouldn’t be federal funding, because the federal government wouldn’t be taking all the money to redistribute to the states. It would be the states issue to tax and provide for things their citizens wanted. aka federalism.

    Roe is bad law, actually, it isnt law at all. Judges shouldn’t create laws, they should interpret the ones that are written. No where in the Constitution is there a protection for abortion and therefore unless you make an amendment, it is a states right to regulate.

    All the things he is arguing against, are essentially arguments against FEDERAL control, not against having these things at the state level. Also, congress would have to approve a lot of the major overhalls that he would like to make happen. Also, he said yesterday that this all can’t happen at once. It would have to be a gradual movement in that direction. Example, you couldnt do away with the Fed the day he got elected. He would just allow other money to compete with the federal reserve and allow people to decide which one they wanted to use.

    Comment by Jason Mitchell — 9/12/2007 @ 4:06 am

40. Look at the options and listen to what he says. At least Ron Paul isn’t gutless and at least he isn’t pandering to the crazies. 8 years or Ron Paul would do nothing but good for this country. We need someone this extreme to pull us back from the brink of fascism. Good call by Fred. Ron Paul was not and never will be a liberal and no you can not pick and choose. If you let big daddy government take care of you then you are within their control and thus not free at all.

    Comment by Areth Foster-Webster — 9/12/2007 @ 4:11 am

41. Great article….until I started actually reading it. First of all who do you listen to about Ron Pauls policy and agenda? It sounds like you are just like all the other sheeple who listen for 2 seconds to catch a few soundbites than make their opinion on those first few words. Almost all the people that have already left comments have done so very eloquently and pointed out your misunderstanding of Ron Pauls ideas.

    I would like to point out one more item. Pick up a dictionary or a high school government book and look up the word “libertarian”. Read. Read again. And if you still have questions ask somebody before writing an article pointing out your ignorance.

    You have been listening to the wrong things Ron says. If you pay attention he keeps reiterating the point that ” he doesn’t want to make policy, or laws for the citizens”. In his ideal government he would get the FEDERAL government (ie. the legislative executive and judicial branch) out of your home. Laws that would really affect you on a daily basis would be enacted in your local areas. If you for example lived in the “Bible Belt” in North central Texas, you would probably have more laws closely related to religion and their morals. If you for example lived in Las Vegas, the laws would be completely different and probably would have no basis in the Bible. If you didn’t like the basic laws in your area you could move to a community that had morals and beliefs more in line with what you believe in.

    Remember just because Ron Paul is running for President, don’t think he is planning on ruling your life and making new laws for you to follow…..thats the beauty of Ron Paul, he wants to get the FED out of your life (like it says in the constitution). If you need more help go here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html

    and re-read the constitution. And then you will have a better understanding of what Ron Paul is truly wanting to do as our PResident.

    Comment by RUKIDDIN — 9/12/2007 @ 4:11 am

42. The author obviously doesn’t understand what a Libertarian is. These are the exact reason why I AM voting for Ron Paul. I disagree with his views on abortion, but he supports leaving it up to the states. this is the kind of mentality we need, freedom and liberty means defending the right for people to do things you don’t necessarily agree with. And his views on church and state, are not that church should be involved but that its not for a federal gov’t to dictate what people should and shouldn’t do. allow people to subscribe to their own beliefs w/e they may be. Yes, he’s too religious form my taste but most candidates are.

    The issues you write about are not his flaws, they are his traits.

    Comment by jackel3415 — 9/12/2007 @ 4:21 am

43. Ummmm, I agree with Ron Paul totally, and always have. In fact, when I first saw him on TV, I thought I was dreaming because I had been wishing for a candidate like him for so long.

    Government programs only SOUND good. It’s been proven for the past 50 years that in practice it doesn’t work well. You are asking a bunch of lawyers to provide you with the best education and healthcare, thats about like having your car worked on by a shrink, and then wondering why the pills didn’t fix your oil leak.

    You also assume the government can make better choices with your life than you can. I personally do not subscribe to that thought and think the best person to choose my path in life is me.

    Not to mention the fact you are just wrong on many points. Such as global warming. All the planets in our solar system are warming up, that is a fact. Jupiter and Saturn actually put off more energy than they get from the sun, thats another fact. Scientists only agree the earth is warming up, not on the causes. However, if the reason is because of our treatment of the earth, then Ron Paul already has the appropriate answer, and it’s called property rights and has a more logical reason than global warming to go back to that. Nobody has the right to pollute your property. Such things should be a crime, yet the current politicians really just legalize pollution through regulations so they get to decide who gets to pollute your environment(based on money mostly). Nobody should have the right to pollute your environment and that is what Ron Paul stands for.

    Comment by badmedia — 9/12/2007 @ 4:27 am

44. I agree with #2 (Johnnyb — 9/11/2007 @ 10:41 pm), you have to rework this to say “I” and not “WE” because you just listed a few more reasons to like Ron Paul. Johnnyb already expounded on this, so I’m not going to duplicate his efforts. (After a quick glance at a few other comments, it looks like most of “us” agree this way as well…)

    Comment by Winkyboy — 9/12/2007 @ 4:53 am

45. To anyone that still thinks he’s racist, please watch this video. You may want to FF>> to 2:00 where she asks her first question. He will come around to and economist who “just happens to be black”. I’ll admit , it’s a little strange the way he puts it, but this is someone he would consider putting in to his cabinet.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=1slo0cGKAYc

    Comment by Ozzy — 9/12/2007 @ 4:53 am

46. not WE….”I”…

    Comment by Mike Gonzalez — 9/12/2007 @ 4:57 am

47. I agree with Ron Paul because he agrees with the constitution. He has always voted with it, and I believe he always will. And I believe America will be a much more free and prosperous nation if we continue to follow the highest law of our land.

    Politicians who only the constitution until they have a better idea is what got us in so much trouble in the first place.

    Be careful, you wrote an article talking about the “sense” of certain policies. But you may be espousing the same principle as GW when he says, “The constitution is Just a Goddamn Piece of Paper!”

    Many of the most brilliant and yet self sacrificing individuals ever wrote the constitution. They wrote it because they knew history. and they knew that the number one enemy of freedom is government. And unless it is kept in check it will grow out of proportion and consume its own citizens.

    Just think about the principle behind the income tax… It may make sense at first. I pay the government and they give me the services I need. But the principle behind the enforcement of that tax says “There is no private property”. The Income tax is a rent by which the government “allows” us to continue to use our property and our possessions. Don’t pay the rent, and they will take it all. That is not the free America the founders wanted. That is feudalism. Which is why the founders abolished that kind of tax from the beginning, in the constitution.

    If you study the constitution and you realize the principles they were fighting for, and some of them died for. There you can see the wisdom of the document which limits the government and keeps it from enslaving it’s people.

    Comment by Josh — 9/12/2007 @ 5:01 am

48. Abortion law is settled policy in this country and while Ron Paul may like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and possibly put an end to all abortion, I think he also understands that the constitutional role of the President has nothing to do with that. The same logic applies to his beliefs about the “robustly Christian” quote.

    I am EXTREMELY opposed to Federal funding of the public schools. Eliminate the entire federal DOE and lower taxes. Let the states and especially the municipalities fund the public schools because education curricula and practice is inherently local.

    Please be sure to date the global warming quotes. While I disagree with him, the previous IPCC report was only 65% confident that global warming was man made vis a vis the most recent IPCC report which was 95% confident.

    The rest of your points I agree with.

    Comment by Drew Vogel — 9/12/2007 @ 5:03 am

49. Ron Paul seems to stand for the demolition of nearly every single FEDERAL institution. FDA, public education, you name it, he’s against it.

    I’m afraid I’m absolutely in support of this.

    Now, these services most definitely should exist, and you are absolutely right in that it’s naive to believe “the market” will fix things.

    but they should exist and function at a city and STATE level.

    that’s really how our country was originally envisioned. A federation of independent states, governing themselves as they saw fit, but coming together for one purpose and one purpose only: defense.

    So sure, there needs to be a federal military.

    But EVERYTHING else should be handled at a more local level, with the state being the top authority.

    Think about how this would fix things. First off, a lot of small governments are going to be more resistant to corruption, and less wasteful, than one big honking pool of money with no oversight. Secondly, there are plenty of instances where a law that works for one group of people simply doesn’t work for another.

    Abortion is a great example. From what I’ve read, Ron Paul’s political (not personal) stance on abortion is that it simply should not be the federal governments decision. Let the states decide. Abortion can be legal in the blue states and illegal in the red states, and people can choose to live where they see fit.

    So for me…Ron Paul 2008. Let him tear down the federal gov, until there is almost nothing left. The states will step up and take over the services worth keeping.

    Comment by Garret Cox — 9/12/2007 @ 5:06 am

50. I am in complete agreement with Ron Paul on all these issues. The Federal Government is not authorized to do any of these things. Only the state and local governments can, if they choose. To have the Federal Government interfere with religious expression, moral issues, or run our schools, a constitutional amendment is required. And because not enough states would support such an amendment, the socialists in control pass unconstitutional bills instead, ignoring the constitution.

    Is there any part of the constitution left that the Federal Government respects anymore? Ron Paul is the only candidate, for decades, who truly takes his oath to uphold the constitution seriously. And he understands that if you need to change something fundamental, you must push for an amendment, which is what he would like to do for birthright citizenship. If he were any other candidiate, he would just sign an executive order declaring that birthright citizenship is abolished. We can’t accept that sort of thinking anymore.

    Comment by Jason — 9/12/2007 @ 5:09 am

51. OMFG! JOHN STOSSEL! GIMME A BREAK! :)

    Comment by Drew Vogel — 9/12/2007 @ 5:10 am

52. Dear Daniel Meissner,

    I think “WE” have answered your article where you INCORRECTLY state “WE are just so in love with him that WE’re not paying attention”…………………go back to Hillary, Edwards,Obama, Guilliani, McCain and Thompson and make your report.

    WE are truly knowledgable, and won’t fall for this “Hit Piece”.

    Go ahead and send them what you have learned here today and how you have been schooled. You can start off your letter to your bosses like this……………………..

    We the people…..

    Comment by RUKIDDIN — 9/12/2007 @ 5:17 am

53. I’m sorry, not Meissner, Meissler

    Comment by RUKIDDIN — 9/12/2007 @ 5:17 am

54. The main reason this critique is weak is his positions are all taken to an extreme. Keep in mind…this guy is HONEST. If George Bush were honest he would be saying he wants Amrica to rule over a big country in the Middle East so we could have plenty of oil for when we take over another country in the Middle East. These wars would be so that his friends with defense contracts get paid. Also he would probably not have a problem with a full-blown theocracy and since he used to be a druggie, he probably would have been fine having drugs legalized at some point.

    Ron Paul has not offered any ways to change the government during his candidacy. All he says is things should be like this. THAT is his main weakness. No sane individual thinks the FDA should be gone tomorrow. Everything is phased in and phased out and he would like to phase this stuff out. He just doesnt talk abotu how to achieve his goals.

    Comment by Willie — 9/12/2007 @ 5:21 am

55. Here are some other quotes from Ron Paul about global warming:

    “Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.”

    “I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that. Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter - and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply. It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all non-binding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States,”

    “Rest assured that the UN is absolutely serious about imposing a global tax. In fact, it has been discussing a global currency for years. The “Tobin Tax”, named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN.

    The Tobin Tax is not the only idea being considered. Some have suggested taxing all airline travel or carbon emissions. The ultimate goal is an income tax, which will be imposed after we’ve all swallowed the concept of UN taxing authority. Fortunately, the House of Representatives passed my language, last week, in the 2007 Foreign Operations bill that prohibits the treasury from paying UN dues if the organization attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on US citizens. But that only protects us for another year. Given the stated goals of the UN, it would be foolish to believe the idea of a global tax will go away.”

    Ron Paul believes that global warming has been with us for a long time though he is somewhat skeptical that it is becoming an immanent crisis. Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that involve government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he does not seek legislation to combat the global warming. Instead, he advocates reducing emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and altering a war-for-oil foreign policy that in itself contributes to global warming.

    But as I say, don’t believe everything you see/hear. Check it all out for yourself… research Ron Paul and his history and views (the Ron Paul library is a good place to start) Find out what bills and legislation he’s tried to pass. Research the Tobin Tax. Research the UN… What is it? What is it’s goals? Where did it originate? When you hear about a bill that’s being introduced, research it for yourself and find out what it’s all about and who will profit from it the most… the citizens, the government, the organizations, or corporate businesses.

    Comment by LibertyLady — 9/12/2007 @ 5:23 am

56. I think Paul has introduced a constitutional amend to ban abortion, Im not psotive though. He also introduced an amendment, or rather supports one, that would severly weaken the seperation of church and state. He seems to be kind of… nonchalant about amending the constitution; thats disturbing as well.

    But you missed the most disturbing thing about Ron Pauls philosophy: He doesnt think the Bill of Rights should apply to the states. He thinks they only apply to the federal government (and even then under the most strict interpretation).

    I think not enforcing the Bill of Rights on the states would lead to a loss of alot of freedom. It doesnt make sense to me to say that we have “inalienable rights” but then say theyre different depending on which state you live.

    Comment by brainiac — 9/12/2007 @ 5:26 am

57. I support Ron Paul for all the reasons you gave, except for the church and state thing which you have all wrong.

    Perhaps you should find another candidate.

    Comment by disinter — 9/12/2007 @ 5:27 am

58. This is nothing but a liberal leftist rant. You are for national health care? That says it all!

    The law says the government may not establish a religion in conjunction with the state nor may it prevent people from practicing religion freely.

    However, religious SENTIMENT such as thou shall not kill or steal, is well-woven throughout our civil law and thus CAN’T BE SEPARATED. The intent was not to outlaw religious sentiment.

    I suppose he opposes the footbaths for Muslims to perform religious ceremonies at noon each day, that were just installed at a state U in MI recently? I don’t see any objection over that.

    Also, if you don’t have churches, who does the charitable stuff that welfare agencies do now with YOUR MONEY? Get real. You sound like you want to outlaw religion. Even the most atheistic among us would agree that to do that would be unlibertarian.

    As for not allowing the feds to interfere in education, this is a GOOD THING. I was a teacher for 40 years and I don’t think the feds ever did one good thing for local education. Education should always be under local control.

    Global Warming has been debunked as a hoax and merely a ploy by the UN to be able to collect a huge tax from us so they can implement world government. YOU DON’T KNOW THIS? Global Warming is the UN’s ‘religion’. Why don’t you object to that?

    This is typically over picky analysis of stuff that would not change with RP in office. I doubt this person was a supporter in the first place.

    Comment by NH — 9/12/2007 @ 5:28 am

59. These are the exact reasons that I love Ron Paul. Who are you kidding?

    The federal government has no Constitutional right to have anything to do with Education. How ignorant of you to assume that the federal government could do a better job than the state and local governments. Since they’ve usurped power the education system has worsened.

    The same goes for heath care. It’s not a right, and it’s not defined in the Constitution. Perhaps you should read the damn thing before spouting off nonsense.

    Again, the same goes for abortion. It’s an issue of murder in my opinion, and unless it’s comitted on federal land, it’s not a federal issue. What’s wrong with letting the states decide? That way the leftist wackjobs in CA and MA can go around killing babies all day long, but elsewhere we can respect life.

    And consumer protection groups aren’t protection groups, they’re government mandated regulation which again is Unconstitutional at worst, and foolish at best if you believe it falls in the interstate commerce clause. Private industry has clearly been able to do a better job than the government given the opportunity to compete. The UL is a non-profit organization which handles electrical and fire safety, and they’ve managed to do it without becoming a government agency. The FDA has a poor track record for allowing unsafe drugs on the market and delaying drugs for 5-10 years that could be beneficial. How’s that protecting the consumer?

    And finaly, I don’t believe the evidence in global warming. Not that either stance would really matter to me in choosing a president. Richard Lindzen doesn’t believe it either… but I guess we should all rush to a judgement even when the scientific community can’t figure out what’s going on.

    Comment by Tom Wojciaczyk — 9/12/2007 @ 5:29 am

60. The end result will be Guliani/Thompson vs. Hilary/Obama.

    Guliani will win.

    Why do I think this? I believe that the real powers are not the people who vote but the organizations throwing money at these campaigns (this is not so much an oversimplified conspiracy theory as much as a *collusion of very powerful people/organizations who usually get their way. For examples of collusion SEARCH “NAFTA Mexico”, “Money Masters”, “federal reserve privately owned”, “Who Killed the Electric Car”, “Freedom to Fascism”, “Aaron Russo”).

    Where is Giuliani in the polls (as of 11 Sept 07): http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/Articles/daily-news-2007-09-11.html he’s doing quite well.

    Like Chris Rock said, “He’s great – in a crisis. But in real life Giuliani’s kinda like a pit bull. He’s great when you have a burglar, but if you don’t, he just might eat your kids.”

    The control of the masses seems to be the on going trend in the U.S. More specifically control by reactionary fear.

    *In the study of economics and market competition, “collusion” takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit.

    Ron Paul 08

    Comment by elamb — 9/12/2007 @ 5:31 am

61. If you want to really understand why Ron Paul doesn’t want the federal government to be providing education, watch this interview with Norm Dodd, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-295333997504127713&q=norm+dodd&total=134&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

    Comment by woody brando — 9/12/2007 @ 5:33 am

62. BTW, for the people saying Paul just wants the federal government to stay out of the abortion issue and let the states decide… why did he vote for the FEDERAL BAN on ‘partial birth abortion’ then?

    Also, the supreme court deciding whether a law is constitutional or not is not the federal government (the congress and the President) taking away state powers. The federal govt passing laws is different from the supreme court interpreting the constitution and enforcing it on the whole coutnry.

    Comment by brainiac — 9/12/2007 @ 5:41 am

63. Heh,

    That’s funny. I’m supporting Ron Paul because of all the things you mention as flaws. It’s his foreign and anti-fed-reserve policies that I sorta disagree with (but not enough to outweigh the support.)

    But never mind his policies, the main reason I support Ron Paul is that I know what his policies actually are. He is honest. He isn’t going to flip-flop or become a RINO. He has a 20+ record of consistency that is unmatched. I’ll take honest with a few policy flaws, over a say-anything, be-anything to get elected, then do whatever I the heck I want mug-wump.

    At least if Ron Paul gets us out of the income tax, then you and I can each fund the things we want to, and the market will sort it out. Go invest your money in a private college loan fund, or in planned parenthood. You will be allowed, and you will have the money.

    Cheers,

    Comment by RINO Hunter — 9/12/2007 @ 5:54 am

64. “Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.” I wish this was true. The fact is that most christians have been convinced that USA & God are practically one and the same. To them belief in God and patriotism go hand in hand, pledging to the flag is a religious experience, and this country is Gods gift to Christianity. One bomb-shell many of my fellow Christians drop their draw over is that I do not say the pledge of allegience. It’s quite simple really, the bible teaches us that we can only have one master, because if we have two we will at some point have to forsake one for the other. If I pledge my allegience to the flag I am 1. Commiting idol worship and 2. saying that I will do whatever I have to for my country. This is why Christian government officials and government workers will carry out unchristian orders in the name of governement. They are just “doing their job” because they have a broken allegience. When it comes to serving their country or serving God they will choose country, because this country is Gods work in their mind.

    About Ron Paul having bad points; this is true of anyone you vote for. You simply won’t find anyone out there that jives in every regard. They will always have platforms that don’t sit well with you. The point of Ron Paul is that he is an honest candidate. He says what he thinks is right and doesn’t try to hide it when called out. If you ask him his stance on something he will give it, even if he knows his base will disagree. This means you can trust him, and that’s what makes him so likable.

    Comment by Maxo — 9/12/2007 @ 5:57 am

65. Excellent and much-needed essay. Ron Paul is not the answer, despite his obvious positives. The last thing we need is someone else who would move us closer to theocracy.

    Comment by rushmc — 9/12/2007 @ 5:57 am

66. Why do you hate the idea of freedom so much?

    I know personal responsibility is a scary idea, but once you’re free the socialist policies you endorse will look like shackles to enslave you.

    Comment by Jeffrey Henderson — 9/12/2007 @ 6:05 am

67. A very interesting article. I just wanted to mention that if you look deeper into Ron Paul’s background is that he is anti-federalist. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade because he doesn’t believe that the federal government has any business saying one way or the other about abortions. He would get rid of the ruling and let the states make their own laws. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    As far as the comment goes about the founding fathers and religion, he said that they “envisioned” a “robustly christian” America, not WANTED. There is a difference. I don’t think it’s too hard to imagine that the founding fathers knew that this would be a mostly Christian country (which is is).

    Comment by Mark — 9/12/2007 @ 6:18 am

68. I am not a redneck (but I do drive a truck), I tend toward environmental and socially focused causes and priorities… However:

    For god’s sake, have you read the IPCC report you cite? I am sick and tired of people constantly referencing these reports as some sort of evidence of Man-Made Global Warming.

    If you read the reports, as I have, you will see that the “overwhelming evidence” presented is in support of global warming. Yes, the planet does appear to be warming slightly, and there is good scientific evidence for this. However…

    There is less then 2 pages in the IPCC report (IV - the commonly referenced one) that link that reality to any sort of causal, man-made scenario - and at best, there is some scant cursory evidence to support consideration of the the greenhouse gas “theory”.

    Global Warming != Man-Made != Greenhouse Gas Causal Reality

    There is more scientific evidence to refute the greenhouse gas hypothesis as there is to support it. Period Anyone who wants to bang a drum and point fingers can ignore the science and continue to be self-righteous… but if you really care about science, please, pay attention to the facts and deal in factual references and assertions, not more of the usual bandwagon handwaving generalities.

    Comment by Hoju — 9/12/2007 @ 6:18 am

69. He’s not for federally regulated anti-abortion. he states often about how that’s a state issue. so his personal views on the issue are irrelevant.

    Comment by duh — 9/12/2007 @ 6:19 am

70. Good piece. I didn’t know these things about Paul, and I’ve been supporting his run for the presidency. I did visit the link in comment #56 however, and found it to be very informative as to why Paul doesn’t want the gov’t involved in education, and that is because the gov’t allows “foundations” to be formed which are tax free, so large companies like Ford can set up a “foundation” and shelter vast amounts of monies from taxation. Thank you Dr. Paul and thank you Norm Dodd! Paul is still the candidate for me!

    Comment by nikolai — 9/12/2007 @ 6:19 am

71. My stance has always been that he probably won’t get any of his crazy ideas through congress anyways and hopefully hell get a few of is better done because even that would be better than most of the other candidates.

    Comment by Allen — 9/12/2007 @ 6:22 am

72. I knew about his idiotic views on global warming - like the article says, “how much evidence do you need?”.

    What I didn’t know about was his views on religion and separation of church and state. Jebus! Why can’t people see the damage organised, political religion is doing to this and many other countries?

    I guess he’s still the best of a bad bunch….

    Comment by Mono Ape — 9/12/2007 @ 6:38 am

73. Ron Paul does have some crazy ideas, I don’t like his stance on any of the issues that you mentioned. However I strongly support his views on foreign policy and personal freedom, so strongly that I think we can work on the other stuff after he gets elected.

    Comment by Joe — 9/12/2007 @ 6:39 am

74. [...] dmiessler.com | Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We’re Just So in Love With Him T… [...]

    Pingback by Ben’s Blog » Blog Archive » dmiessler.com | Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We’re Just So in Love With Him That We’re Not Paying Attention — 9/12/2007 @ 6:42 am

75. The concerns about subsidy money from feds to be able to afford things is pretty moot. At one point in our history, people used to be able to just afford things, now the way the central banking has been set up (inflation), we work our entire lives away just to be able to pay off the loans in hopes of affording the basic costs in life. ron pauls stance on getting rid of the fed is the cure to most of the problems you seem to point out, in fact it is the cure for 90% of what ails america. Also, as others have already pointed out, subsidy at a state level means the people are represented much more than blanket programs at the federal level. just a couple things to think about, a couple of his main issues really support the arguments for the ones which you seem to know only topically.

    Comment by blah — 9/12/2007 @ 6:56 am

76. YOU think he’s wrong on the positions listed, whereas I do not. I’m an atheist, but I STILL agree that in fact the founders expected the churches to be a major influence on the morality and conduct of the populace. Possibly it is because I’ve read the Federalist Papers that I have half a clue.

    Consumer protection? Caveat emptor. Federalized education? Caveat LECTOR.

    You are wrong across the board in your criticisms, and it appears that such is a product of your lack of serious study of statism and history. Or, to say it another way, the “flaws” you cite would have you laughed out of the original Congress. We need a federalized committee to approve what a retailer in your state can sell? Absurd to think they would agree with you, and I agree with THEM.

    Read the Federalist Papers, and study anarcho-capitalism and the like, at least to get a baseline on where we really stand. Or risk continuing the problems we face (at MY expense, natch) with WILLFUL ignorance. You owe it to the REST of us to put in some study time, bubba.

    >> “his extreme and illogical views”

    It is QUITE possible his views are perfectly logical (save that he’s a theist) and not extreme by any yardstick except the average dimwit American’s limited understanding of the issues.

    Be well.

    Comment by Ellis_Wyatt — 9/12/2007 @ 7:04 am

77. My problem isn’t with his libertarian concepts; the problem is that he seems oblivious to the fact that we have to take reality into account when trying to implement them.

    Comment by Daniel Miessler — 9/12/2007 @ 7:18 am

78. well actually his ideas used to be the US’s reality, you seem to want to continue to live in a gov’t cradle while the private corps take your money instead of earning it.

    Comment by blah — 9/12/2007 @ 7:43 am

79. College loans increase the demand for college slightly, and do increase the amount of people who can go, but push the price up college up ridiculously. Much like the housing bubble, people tie a large debt ball and chain around themselves because it’s the expected thing to do. I went to college on scholarship (so you can take these comments with a grain of salt if you want), but everybody I know that has student loans has had massive bills for them every month, and they’re pretty much living paycheck to paycheck. Debt is basically selling yourself into wage slavery.

    Why should the federal government be funding education? Does Ron Paul say that if he were a governor, he would eliminate state run education? The federal government should not be in the business of taking most of your taxes, and then divvying them up to the states. It’s not a matter of -defunding- education, it’s a matter of downsizing the federal government, states raising taxes, and then public schools being more locally accountable.

    National healthcare is a terrible idea. Why can’t the states individually have their own healthcare programs? Try 50 different things, and see what works the best. National healthcare will end up being a few crony companies supplying the health plans, and the same red tape crap. This country is simply too big to amass power in the federal government. Unfortunately, people don’t want to follow this idea, and want to affect as many people as they can.

    The FDA isn’t solely a consumer protection group. Leave the area that researches information and prevents fraud (say, selling a drug as one thing when it’s really another). Get rid of the part that makes medical devices go through asinine regulations. Get rid of the part that prevents patients from getting drugs before they’ve been fully approved.

    I would like to see Ron Paul on a ticket with Dennis Kucinich. I don’t know which way, but I think it would balance it out a bit. Perhaps Ron Paul could work on demolishing these federal agencies that suck money from the states and then redistribute it, and Dennis Kucinich could work on transitioning the states to doing the right thing. Or something. Unfortunately, I think then the media would finally have something to rip Ron Paul apart over.

    Comment by mind — 9/12/2007 @ 7:51 am

80. While many of the above “problems” I actually agree with (education, health care, the EPA which is nothing more than a scam to protect polluters), you’re wrong about his view of separation of church and state. There’s nothing in his quotes that say the government should have anything to do with churches. I think you missed the last line in the first paragraph in his quote.

    Comment by Dan D. — 9/12/2007 @ 8:00 am

81. I am certainly concerned by his more extreme positions. Nevertheless, I intend to vote for him, even though I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate before. I don’t worry about how he’ll implement his extreme positions, because RON PAUL IS NOT ELECTABLE. You are all kidding yourselves if you really think his positions matter. So why am I voting for him?

    1. Because NONE of the electable candidates have convinced me they will actually fight to (i) regain the civil liberties I have lost to Bush & Co., or (ii) get us out of Iraq ASAP.

    2. Because he is a man of principle (even when I disagree with his principles) who is not afraid to speak his mind. Our election process needs far more of that, and far, far less of pandering to the least common denominator. This broken system explains why BOTH major parties are fielding such weak, weak candidates.

    3. Because enough votes for Ron Paul might at least send the message that isuues 1 and 2 are IMPORTANT and must not be ignored by the new president, whoever s/he is.

    4. Because, despite all his flaws, he’s the best candidate running, regardless of party.

    5. Because (as others have noted), even if I’m wrong and Ron Paul is somehow elected, the checks and balances of the political process will water down Mr. Paul’s effectiveness in implementing his more extreme views anyway.

    In light of the weak competition, I’m willing to run the risk that Ron Paul might actually get elected. As shortsighted and unrealistic as he might be, he is still better than any of our other choices.

    Comment by Stomper — 9/12/2007 @ 8:11 am

82. The fact that “Federal Government”, throughout the entire article, is equated with “Government” only highlights the disconnect from our founding concepts. Go read the constitution, specifically, Article 1 Section 8. Then read the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. After you have done this, rewrite your article in a manner that does not encourage ignoring the constitution.

    Comment by Filmore — 9/12/2007 @ 8:19 am

83. While you make good points I would point out that where Mr. Paul does not support federally mandated programs, he does support STATE mandated programs. so you don’t have an FDA, you have a STATE department, you don’t have Federal Student Loans, you have STATE student loans, you don’t have FEDERAL Universal Healthcare, you have STATE Universal Healthcare.

    6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

    Doug

    Comment by Doug — 9/12/2007 @ 8:28 am

84. The view that his market policies would “leave people in the cold” is a fallacious argument, in my view. Charitable organizations have an excellent track record when it comes to helping the poor, while the government has an abominable track record(I know that’s unsubstantiated, but I’ll try to research this). Shouldn’t we have the choice to give our money where we think it will be best spent?

    Aside from that, his other views are pretty inconsequential, as he leaves them up to the states to judge. When it comes to pollution, getting rid of corporate personhood would go a long way to evening the odds, though I disagree with him that total deregulation is best.

    I would like Ron Paul to give us an idea of how he plans to phase in the free-market system because an immediate overhaul would be dangerous. And I would ask how he plans to work with congress on this. I wouldn’t want him to be a lame duck president for his entire term.

    Comment by Stevo — 9/12/2007 @ 8:43 am

85. >> “the problem is that he seems oblivious to the fact that we have to take reality into account when trying to implement them.”

    Well, bro - as I’m out to his LA rally in a few minutes, I have to be short.

    He is not at all oblivious, and if you read Mises/Rockwell/Browne (e.g.: study the libertarian school), it becomes clear that the problems facing post New Deal America run very deep. On economics alone, the reality is that we MUST contract the money supply. That means “recession”, but as it is either a bitter pill now or an amputation later, I’m for taking the medicine and getting it over with.

    And if one looks closely, one sees that there are MCUH more powerful trends afoot than simple electioneering. You might ask how many theists are going to be around in 20 years, instead of assuming that religion is on the upswing, because it’s not. So, scratch your first point as largely moot.

    Twice voted NYC teacher of the year John Taylor Gatto wrote a book called “The Underground History Of American Education” detailing the whosesale corruption of federalized education. It is beyond doubt that industrial forces lobbied the D.O.Education to teach people to be DUMBER, so that they would be satisfied with assembly-line work. Look it up. Now, as Ford-style manufacture is on it’s way out (robotics), why the hell would we still approach it that way? Look at the test scores - lower and lower. Why? Look at the federal curricula - it’s ALL like “my two mommies” and shit. Clearly propaganda, clearly socialist, clearly designed to reduce efficacious cognition.

    How that happened is a story for another day, but there it is, the cold hard reality you say he is oblivious too.

    Possibly it is we who are the well-informed ones? Maybe you can’t afford to retire at 28 for academic pursuits like I did, but said pursuit has left me very, very well informed. My support of RP is thoroughly reasoned, based exclusively on objective fact (as per my nick), and intends to mitigate the hardships we are facing.\

    Be well.

    Comment by Ellis_Wyatt — 9/12/2007 @ 9:09 am

86. I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich is a better candidate.

    Comment by 821523 — 9/12/2007 @ 9:21 am

87. Thanks for the article. As someone who usually votes for the Democrat but who supports Ron Paul, you’ve echoed many of my concerns. And if a President Ron would have a compliant congress, some of those concerns would probably lead me to support someone else.

    But a President Ron would face a very hostile Democratic congress with the net effect that not much would get accomplished. Ron Paul would probably never back down from his principles and would wear out many many veto pens. And Congress would back down sometimes but would generally fight him every step of the way.

    The net effect would be that civil liberties would be mostly restored, torture would no longer be a valid policy, the illegal wars would stop and the only remaining conflict would be Afghanistan (which RP said he supported). I wouldn’t expect a complete legalization of drugs but I would expect blanket pardons given at regular intervals to all non-violent drug offenders, thus decriminalizing drug use and sales nationwide.

    The Democrats would successfully protect most entitlements and regulatory agencies. RP has said that his goal would be to dismantle the military-industrial complex first and then tackle the social programs later so I don’t think he would fight the Democrats too much on this point.

    I would like to think he would veto bills containing a heavy amount of earmarks left and right.

    If Roe v. Wade was overturned, I think most states would keep it legal. A few states would try to heavily restrict it or make it illegal and would then discover a near-revolution at the polls, overturning those laws and kicking out most politicians who voted for it. In addition, I think removing abortion as an option would create an apocalypse for Republicans everywhere and they would have to confront the fact that nearly 50 percent of their own members support abortion rights and a huge majority in the voting population at large. So, ironically, overturning Roe might cause abortion to finally be enshrined as a right.

    Overall, RP would be good because he would essentially represent a reset-button for how Americans view government and government’s role in the world and in their lives. We’d essentially get a ‘do-over’ which I think we badly need.

    Comment by hrm — 9/12/2007 @ 9:33 am

88. Vote Kucinich. Problem solved.

    Comment by remy — 9/12/2007 @ 9:35 am

89. As a “national libertarian” i say to democrats, progressives, socialists, social liberals, and so on: the federal govt cannot be as efficient as your state and local govt in providing all those education, welfare, health care, and retirement services that you desire. Small states can join up with other small states for providing those services, if they want (eg. health care). The result of putting so much power into the federal govt is an executive branch grabbing too much power and a freespending wasteful congress. If you fear this current president as i do, you must realize that the national govt and executive branch have accumulcated too much power.

    As a “national libertarian” i say to republicans, conservatives, social conservatives, and so on: let the states choose how socially conservative and how fiscally conservative they want to be, they are more likely to be in accord to just what you want anyway.

    I think it is good that states have different systems and rules, may the good policies prosper and the lousy ones fall to the wayside. As it is, with the national govt trying to dictate everything all the policies come out lousy (like a national textbook or national education standards) and i can’t move away from it nor once it is entrenched (like medicare) is it easy to undo.

    Sidebars:

    As someone else says, dont worry too much if Ron Paul disagrees with you on some policies. It is congress who will enact the legislation. I am looking forward to a president who says “the exec branch will follow the law” and “i will let congress delcare the wars” and “i think the federal govt has too much power”.

    Libertarians can be annoying when they talk about no public education, don’t fret that point, our discussion here should be what the federal govt should or should not do. That is why i call myself a “national libertarian” for this discussion. I might be in favor of state sponsored health care and tummy rubs, i won’t say; i will only say that the federal govt should not take that responsibility.

    The concept of constitutional “checks and balances” refers to balancing state power vs federal power as much as the commmonly cited three branches of the federal govt.

    Comment by scott h — 9/12/2007 @ 9:45 am

90. I applaud your efforts to understand things better, however you did an amazing job of skimming the topics and then reading the cliff notes before you put together your “thoughts” on the matter, that is what Fox News is for.

    To say you are willing to put a bumper sticker on your car and then write a crapstastic headline about how flawed he is? comon that is a job for Bill O’Riley, not a patriot.

    Comment by jason — 9/12/2007 @ 9:48 am

91. I was also part of the initial Ron Paul bandwagon. However, after examining the all of his public political views - I think Dennis Kucinich is the man we’re looking for.

    Comment by Mike — 9/12/2007 @ 9:50 am

92. Vote for Kucinich or Gravel and skip these issues Paul has.

    Comment by Anton — 9/12/2007 @ 9:58 am

93. This is a comprehensive and well put together piece. Thank you.

    Comment by Taylor — 9/12/2007 @ 10:11 am

94. Hey, who did you think you were supporting in the first place? Jesus.

    That aside, there would be plenty of difference between Ron Paul the ideologue and Ron Paul the president. Congress isn’t going to liquidate the fed just because RP got elected.

    He’s the best candidate. Period.

    Comment by Brandon Croft — 9/12/2007 @ 11:10 am

95. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education He wants “the community” to provide education to the public.

    This was my biggest problem with Ron Paul ; one which I cannot get over. I don’t think abolishing fed public education is a good idea, at all. I think this government should provide more human services for it’s people, and spend less on the military and global warfare. This disconnect of the federal government from the people is exactly what the top 1% would want. Think about it, their kids goto the private prep school - remember? WTF do they need the public school system for? We cannot allow this type of disconnected thinking to go on.

    Comment by Capthook — 9/12/2007 @ 11:25 am

96. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education He wants “the community” to provide education to the public.

    This was my biggest problem with Ron Paul ; one which I cannot get over. I don’t think abolishing fed public education is a good idea, at all. I think this government should provide MORE human services for it’s people.

    Comment by Capthook — 9/12/2007 @ 11:26 am

97. Dude, I think most Ron Paul supporters are aware of these points. These are reasons why we like him.

    I know you think they are illogical, I felt that way when I was first introduced to Libertarianism. Read up on the Libertarian views, and on economics and maybe you will better understand why he holds these views and you can better evaluate if you agree with them.

    Comment by Nathan — 9/12/2007 @ 11:36 am

98. We don’t really have much of a choice here, do we? I’m a left-leaning independent, and while I’m certainly not crazy about some of his views, I am quite open for change… a change that voting for the typical D or R will not bring.

    My choice is simple. Vote for change, or vote for the status quo.

    I’m voting for change.

    Comment by Alan — 9/12/2007 @ 11:44 am

99. Ron Paul gets his positions from the U.S. Constitution, that is his platform, so he actually has the most logical and lawful views if you look at American history and tradition. He is not pulling these ideas out of his ass like most mainstream politicians do, he is using the Constitution as a guid