When you’ve lost all conservatives in this race, what does one do? Tancredo, Hunter and now Thompson, all good conservatives, are out. Mitt is a wanna be conservative but you actually have to have a voting record and a pro-life membership longer than a Britney Spear marriage. Ron Paul, the former Libertarian, looks very interesting at this point. He’s a little odd but has solid views on important issues. He’s got a great populist following on both sides of the political fence. I believe those of us who were faithful Fred fans need to look at Ron Paul as the guy sending a message to the GOP Establishment. We’re not going to support politics as usual, we need a new voice who isn’t bought and paid for by the corporate elites.

Pat you have got to be kidding me?

“A little odd”

“not bought and paid for by the corporate elites” ?

His domestic policy is intriguing I’ll admit, but his policy implementation is absurd!

His foreign policy isn’t “odd”, its dangerously ignorant!

His position that this war is unconstitutional belays a prejudice which suggests that even the incorruptible Ron Paul is willing to stretch the truth.

His utter refusal to concede that the world possesses ideologues who wish to destroy America for other than rational reasons is frightening.

Speak for yourself sir. Conservatives have lost an important battle in this primary, but I don’t intend to give up the party by supporting a candidate who would sacrifice our honor in Iraq. A candidate who doesn’t have a prayer of getting his domestic policy passed because he demands too much too quickly.

I will presume to remind you sir that conservatives are ever mindful of traditions; even bad ones. And because of this we understand that the only meaningful changes are the ones that are permitted to happen over time and the ones that give people choices.

I will have a difficult decision choosing a candidate, but my choice to oppose Paul lasted no longer than it took to hear his convoluted defense policy.

I will not permit Ron Paul to create a situation of existential struggle that my son will have to fight, because he is dedicated to a policy which ignores modern technological and economic realities.

I am sorry to my Libertarian friends who support him. I would very much like to see an alliance between conservatives, libertarians and objectivists; but Ron Paul’s foreign policy is unacceptable.

You can’t exclude him over one issue, that’s not responsible. And he’s one person. Everyone know the power is in Congress, not the White House. Plus we need to change it up, we can’t keep going with the same old bought and paid for establishment types who currently hold office. Real change comes from looking outside what the RNC talking points tells you to think. And what Hannity and Rush also reguritate.

You’re dad would be proud Pat!

Paul is an isolationist, which means he is wrong on many more than one issue.

Paul is also opposed to government intervention in anything – meaning he does not want to define marriage at all.

If pseudo-anarchy is your goal – Paul for President.

There’s nothing wrong with isolationism, it served us well for over 500 years. Stop buying what the government media complex tells you to think. Or what the United Nations puts on your breakfast table. It’s ok to be patriotic. America First!

Calling foreign policy “one issue” is like saying well Hillary is opposed to Free Markets, but thats only one issue.

Give me a break Pat. You are playing pretty fast and loose with history here.

If you are trying to compare the 17th, 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries with the current one, then you are sorely misinformed on our enemies capabilities and intentions.

I would expect a strict constructionist and lover of the constitution to realize that national defense is the CHIEF concern of the federal government. So being wrong on this issue carries a great deal of weight.

For all of the damage Republicans do to themselves by mocking Paul, there is always a Ron Paul supporter to make them look justified.

I’m not “buying in to the big government lie” about interventionist foreign policy; I’m simply unwilling to ignore the historical evidence which clearly shows that ignoring threats through isolationist policy does not make them go away. This was a questionable policy in the time of matchlock muskets and wooden frigates, it is a catastrophic one in the age of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

If Ron Paul is not willing to take this threat seriously, I see no reason to take him seriously.