Simple matter of common sense.
- Democratic party voters are currently laboring under the delusion that a democratic president will take us out of Iraq and have some radically different, more sensible foreign policy. This, of course, isnt the case at all. To say nothing of the fact that Hillary, Obama, etc. are all CFR members, they are all currently backing away from their former position of "just get out" of Iraq.
- Ron Paul has CONSISTENTLY held the exact same position on Iraq. He argues that it was a mistake to ever go in the first place and VOTED AGAINST IT. He has vowed to scale back military exapnsion overseas and pull troops out of not only Iraq, but Korea, Germany, etc. On this, and MANY other issues, Ron Paul has one big thing going for him if nothing else; he does EXACTLY what he says he will do and tells the truth.
By contrast, Hillary has capitalized on the anti-war sentiment currently held by over 70% of the country...even though she voted for the Iraq war and now says we cant leave until 2013.
Frankly Im not interested in what the landline polls say because all things considered, I think its a wildly inaccurate and silly way to do polling. Nor am I one of those who believes Ron Paul will necessarily win anything, even the nomination. But Im also not sheepishly buying the idea that a flip-flopping serial-liar like Romney or Giuliani who are both running on Bush's same foreign policy (one of the most politically disastrous and unpopular policies in recent history) will somehow avoid getting absolutely CRUSHED by Hillary next year.
On actual policy positions and pure substance (not hairstyle, speaking skills, or a "presidential jawline"), Ron Paul really is the only candidate who has Hillary beat solid in terms of the War and illegal immigration, and his domestic/social policy views (end the drug war, increased private property rights, end coporate welfare, industrialize hemp, etc) could easily be argued as more liberal and hands-off than Hillary.
