What's wrong with Ron Paul is that he is an inconvenience to the neo-con wing of the Republican Party, who utter words of peace and limited gov't and fiscal responsibility, while they chart the way for aggressive wars, the largest expansion of the federal gov't in decades and have doubled the debt, which should clock in at around $10 trillion by January 2009. Meanwhile Ron Paul has backed up his words with action his entire career.

He's such a splendid find this primary season, the only candidate who doesn't make you feel like you must settle for the lesser of two evils.

Of course Ron Paul wouldn't be able to downsize the gov't as much as he'd like, but to stop the illegal wars and do away with the torture prisons, while getting troops out of Germany and Japan and elsewhere to secure our own borders first, and then getting rid of the Dept. of Homeland Security would be a pretty successful year for all of us. Those moves would make us safer while it would reduce our out-of-control spending.

How ironic that this Republican, pitted against Hillary let's say, would actually be able to take the high ground by saying she voted for the war, not him. He would invalidate all the arguments that people have against the neo-con controlled Republican Party at the moment.