Well, since a vote for Ron Paul is a vote in the Republican primary, it is self-evidently not a vote for HIllary. The appropriate way to deal with Paul if you oppose his ideas is to engage his ideas, not call him names. His volunteers are obviously numerous, geographically distributed, and engaged. Now ask yourself -- do you want those people on our side in November, or do you want them sitting out or (worse) working their tails off for Hillary?

As Paul Geary says, Dr. Paul's presence in Congress is useful, and the ideas he champions are--with some exceptions--the core of successful GOP policy. Abolishing the Dept. of Education is "crazy" if you're W., but it's a platform plank if you're Gingrich. For Paul, it's common sense and Constitutional sense (you will search in vain for the word "education" in the federal Constitution.)

Paul is on record rejecting the "truther" claim that the U.S. was behind 9/11, but he is also skeptical of official governement reports, which he notes have an unfortuante tendency to whitewash failures (see, e.g., Curveball).

Ron Paul has been on Alex Jones' show several times; he and Jones share skepticism about the North American Union project, gun control, and toll roads; but it is irresponsible to impute the views of talk show hosts to their guests. Frankly, the Congressman's appearances on the show make me a little uncomfortable, but I've listened to parts of two of them, and Paul doesn't swallow or advance everything Jones says. Paul has likewise appeared in debates moderated by left-of-center Democrats, but we do not make the mistake of imputing Chris Matthews' enthusiasm for abortion on demand to the ob/gyn Dr. Paul.

And people who claim that Shia and Sunni do not make common cause against the infidel are willfully ignorant. Dr. Paul's view of the trail of causation may not track yours, but that doesn't mean it's nutty. The rise of the Taliban/Al Qaeda is related to the rise of Khomeneists, and the rise of the Khomeneists is linked to the CIA coup against Mossedeh in 1953.

Paul is a serious player, and his supporters, unlike those of Huckabee, Brownback and Hunter, have put their money where their mouth is. Serious people, like Guiliani, object to those ideas of Paul's they find objectionable. But America's Mayor has not denounced the Congressman as a "loose right-wingnut," in part because he recognizes that "my 80% ally is not my 20% enemy."

So - who would you prefer: Hillary or Ron Paul? And what does that say about you?

Rightguy:

I agree, except to this point: "The only thing he can do is disrupt and fractionate the republicans." Once the primaries are over, his supporters can be pulled in to the party, along with those principles of the Congressman that the winner is comfortable with. And perhaps the cause of small government will gain some small traction. Certainly, under W., it could hardly have gained less.

I remember when "big government conservative" was an oxymoron.