After all, he'd be the most easily defeated from your entire slate.
For everyone who claims his personal opinions on vital subjects are irrelevant because he wants states to decide, please don't overlook - Ron Paul wants to remove the Incorporation Doctrine. That's the law that makes the Bill of Rights applicable to each state, meaning you'd be at risk of losing the basic liberties you now take for granted in any circumstance that doesn't reach federal jurisdiction. (And remember - he's openly against federal jurisdiction, too, as his "states' rights" argument repeatedly demonstrates.)
He swears he's no racist, but takes donations from openly racist organizations and accepts endorsements from openly racist kooks.
He swears he'll steer the country to isolationism and withdraw our troops, but has had military contractors and even CIA agents working his campaign, and has taken big donations from military privatization proponents of the caliber of Blackwater/Xe. (Small army, big mercenary!)
He claims we don't need the Affordable Health Care Act, and that everyone can find the medical care they need without any such implementation ... but also says "you don't have a right to health care."
He says he's no typical politician and doesn't pull any negativity against opponents in his campaign, but last October spent $2 million in attack ads.
No American has a right to education, Paul says.
We all know about the newsletters that carried his name, and we've all heard Ron Paul change his mind over the years about who wrote them and how much he knew about them (yes, I wrote them - no, I didn't, but I knew about their content, and you folks are just twisting it out of context - no I didn't write them, and never knew about them). Now his own staff are saying he wrote most of them, and was well aware of all content in those newsletters that issued blatantly racist statements.
Many of his bills are worded in a very misleading style; Paul claims they're for one subject, but when you read them in full you learn his goal was very different. He's written bills that would take surplus Social Security funds (over a billion dollars in reserves) and hand them over to Wall Street. His HR 190, Paul said, was to keep illegal aliens from collecting Social Security. But they can't receive it to begin with; read the bill in full, and it removed laws against companies hiring illegal aliens. Another bill of Paul's he claimed was in favor of stem cell research; that bill, however, was just for show - it didn't change any of the current terms for that research, and even reads that it restricts any further development in the field.
That "end the fed" slogan he milks is misleading, too. He complains that our economy is ruled by this group, which is a governmental board that includes private industry. While so many applaud the concept of having greedy Wall Street executives removed from control of our economy, they fail to recognize that Paul's only goal is to remove the government from oversight. He wants those private companies - which we all know is chiefly responsible for our current economic woes - to hold the keys all by themselves.
And as for that "states' rights" mantra, go look up the bills he wrote trying to get the federal government to remove the Occupational Safety and Health Act, restrict the Clean Air Act and Water Pollution Control Act, completely remove the Soil and Water Preservation Act, repeal Davis-Bacon, repeal Roe v. Wade (tried that one four times) ... and making them illegal on the federal level means no state can introduce the same on its own state level (states can't overrule the federal government, after all).
Just read the individual subjects on his site's issues page; he's against women's rights, against individual labor rights, favors offshore drilling, wants to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and thinks millionaires should pay no taxes on their unearned income from stock sales.
I know of three distinctly separable groups of Paul supporters. One group I understand and feel in-kind with. They are mid-30's and younger, either with college education or still in college, who feel neglected and overlooked by the government. Many are first-time taxpayers, too, and don't appreciate this new burden. They see the government as over-sized and restrictive as a result. Both this group and their parents didn't become taxpayers until the Reagan era, though, when income taxes were dramatically lowered on wealth and increased on everybody else. They need to look at the history of this subject before pointing their fingers in the current direction they wiggle.
Then there's the openly racist group of a-Paul-stles, like the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is nothing more than the KKK, except its members don't wear sheets and can speak more than monosyllabic words. They support Paul for his racist views and his full tolerance of their racist actions.
Then there's the group of Paulites who only support him for what they perceive to be his "legal dope" stance. He doesn't really hold this position, by the way, and only uses it as example of one argument he uses to get support from younger folks who don't ordinarily vote. Every time he's asked for a formal statement on the subject, he just repeats his "state's rights" topic. This group still repeats their "Toke Up for Ron Paul!" slogan all over the internet, though.
I could care less about those latter two groups. They're irrelevant voters, and nothing anyone says or does will change their minds or methods.
That first group, though, should really look into Ron Paul a little more closely.
End the Fudd, folks. Don't vote for that quack, unless you want our society to move back 800 years into serfdom.