We should be careful before jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon. He's not really what I would consider a libertarian. Although the GOP loves to talk about loving liberty, consider their history.

What liberties does the right-wing stand for? Largely for the liberty to privately abridge other people's liberties. For instance, the right-wing interest in "State's Rights" came from a desire to impose restrictions on a state level that couldn't be imposed legally on the federal level, for instance, slavery and Jim Crow.

McCain used to be more of a genuine libertarain, but he has backed off that stance in order to pander. Ron Paul, on the other hand, never was.

Ron Paul talks about supporting "fr...

We should be careful before jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon. He's not really what I would consider a libertarian. Although the GOP loves to talk about loving liberty, consider their history.

What liberties does the right-wing stand for? Largely for the liberty to privately abridge other people's liberties. For instance, the right-wing interest in "State's Rights" came from a desire to impose restrictions on a state level that couldn't be imposed legally on the federal level, for instance, slavery and Jim Crow.

McCain used to be more of a genuine libertarain, but he has backed off that stance in order to pander. Ron Paul, on the other hand, never was.

Ron Paul talks about supporting "freedom and rights," then starts talking about "the right to life" which really means "the right of a single church with its obscure and controversial dogma to dictate what you can or cannot do with your own body."

He talks about the "right to home-school or private schools" which really means "the right to send your children to schools where independent thought and modern tollerance are forbidden by dogmatic religious authority."

He talks about the "right to bear arms" but what he really means is "the right to retain the power to take human life at will using military assault weapons," which is the ultimate abrogation of another's freedom.

Current freedoms are guaranteed by the government to protect us from the potentially authoritarian elements in our society, such as the zealous, the wealthy, and the heavily armed. The reason for our government is so that we are not at the mercy of our fellow citizens. Ron Paul seeks to erode those protections, not uphold them.

In freedom Ron Paul's America is the freedom to be oppressed by our fellow citizens. No thanks!

Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent, but I think it's relevant. Consider this, Ron Paul may seem to be against torture, but he is an isolationist who opposes the World Court, the UN, and International Law of any kind.

Thus, he is an apostle of American Exceptionalism. Although he may personally may oppose torture, his actual position is necessarily one of endorsement, in that he believes that America should not be subject to international law forbidding it. Thus, even if we could trust him personally to not torture innocent civilians in the name of the USA, his platform would nevertheless create an atmosphere where future presidents could with impunity.

If you think we don't need internat...

Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent, but I think it's relevant. Consider this, Ron Paul may seem to be against torture, but he is an isolationist who opposes the World Court, the UN, and International Law of any kind.

Thus, he is an apostle of American Exceptionalism. Although he may personally may oppose torture, his actual position is necessarily one of endorsement, in that he believes that America should not be subject to international law forbidding it. Thus, even if we could trust him personally to not torture innocent civilians in the name of the USA, his platform would nevertheless create an atmosphere where future presidents could with impunity.

If you think we don't need international law, just look at Blackwater. Clearly, without embracing global legal principles held in common with all free countries, and holding ourselves neither above nor bellow them, it will be impossible for our nation to prevail in the important battle to regain the respect and trust of the neighbors we must live and work with around the world.

This is the difference between McCain and Ron Paul: moral conviction. McCain is not afraid to stand up and hold himself (and our country) to the morals that he believes in. I don't believe that McCain is secretly sneaking around the constitution, trying to protect the rights of dogmatic religious schools or white-only country clubs.

Of course, McCain is pretty thoroughly compromised, either by his "good soldier" mentality or simply spending too long in the belly of the beast. I don't trust any of them. If we should have learned anything over the last 7 years, its that the GOP is not a party that governs in good faith, that they do not uphold their values and they are not working towards their public stated goals, but towards a coded agenda of their own deep beneath the surface.