1. I disagree with his position on abortion but that is just one issue, besides he would not ban abortion in the US, he would just give the option of states to decides. He comes to this conclusion from the constitution and state rights...
2. He is the only candidate against corporate welfare, the ONLY!! and his record proves it.
3. He is not for forced prayer in school, in fact out of all the candidates he talks about his religion the least because he does not use religion to pander believers. In fact he defended Romney this week, saying that religion of a candidate should play no role in determining the quality of the candidate.
4. Actually Friedman was for eliminating the Fed(as are all if not most libertarians ). Greenspan also recently suggested in an interview that the Gold Standard woudl be better. The gold standard is also proposed by many economist and financial analyst, fiat money is what gives the government the power to create these booms/bust, if you had the dollar pegged to gold you wouldnt have the inflation we have now and it would be the world's strongest currency it would also take away the government's ability to create these artificial boom's.
MORE importantly it is unconstitutional.
My biggest problem with Ron Paul is the ignorance of most of his supporters. You and Scot are rather unfamiliar with your guy if you don't know some very basic things about this Christo-fascist.
Ron Paul supports amending the US Constitution to specifically state that life begins at conception (ie, fertilization). While his primary purpose for this is an end run to Roe, most people fail to understand that this also undermines Grisowld and Eisenstadt- very publicly stated goals of the right wing for a number of years now. Such an amendment would eliminate most forms of oral contraception, since the safest, most effective forms are those which will even prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. In Paul's world, that is murder and therefore illegal. How is that any different from the nitiwts Romney and Huckabee? Answer- it isn't.
Paul also supports amending the Constitution with the School Prayer Amendment backed by the religious zealots who are not satisfied with practicing their own religion and leaving me and my child the fuck alone.
For someone who supposedly respects the document, he sure as hell wants to amend the damn thing willy nilly.
Paul also supports censure of judges who have ordered mandatory school prayer be halted, supports teaching CREATIONISM as science, wants abstinence only sex ed, and supports sending TAX dollars to religious schools through vouchers. Yet you assert thathe doesn't pander? The "libertarian" who wants to send even more of my tax dollars to religious institutions doesn't pander? Alrighty then.
I won't go into great detail on the corporate welfare issues, but the man is supported by the COC. He is NOT opposed to corporate interests in the least, though he certainly isn't the worst of the republicans on corporate issues. He's maybe even a little better than Clinton on them. But while I don't agree with him on all issues, I must say that Dennis Kucinich would be the most anti-corporate of those running, and it isn't even close between him and Paul.
Paul is a lot of things, and pandering Christo-fascist would be included among them. The fact that he's still better than any of the other republicans (and probably Clinton) should tell you just how crappy our candidates are this time.