Paul has one ringing strength -- his desire to return to a federal government that is more strictly Constitutional.

This is NOT to assert that our present government is not, only that it now functions along the following lines: If it isn't prohibited by the Constitution then it must be okay for the Federal Government to do.

Paul, correctly, is asserting that the metric should be: If it isn't specificially ascribed TO the federal government, then it should be the province of the several states to decide upon OR the Constitution should be properly ammended to allow for federal control of X, Y, or Z.

However, his quasi-isolationist foreign policy schema is impractical for a nation with global business interests and given the last half-century of involvement we have had. Some re-orientation adopting some of his themes may well be profitable as a new course, but the entirety is too limiting.

Economically, he has some good themes (taxation) and some less practical ones (re-adopting a metals standard). I'd even accept that the latter might also have some long-term value, but I do not believe the World-wide depression it would engender for the next 5-15 years would help us with our neighbors -- to say the least.

I am also leery of many of the Paulists out there. They may be internet savvy and interested in real change, but too many of them are whack-job conspiracy monkies and a couple are out-and-out loons. Too much of Paul's support is about "Iraq is wrong" and "I wanna get baked legally" and not enough is about the correct and Constitutional interplay of rights and responsibilities.

Pity, too -- his calling card is a nice theme.


As it is, I'm agreeing with Xiahou. I find Thompson the most congruent, but he's less compelling than I'd like him to be.