I don't quite get your rationale for saying that "voting for Romney is a vote for less freedom, even if it's for more freedom than Obama." Are you saying you would prefer to have less freedom by having Obama re-elected to another 4 year term than putting him out of the Oval Office and replacing him with someone who is much less of a Leftwing Extremist than Obama? I'll grant you that Romney isn't my first choice of alternatives by any means, but he certainly is preferable to having Obama and his Czars rule by Executive Order for another 4 years. I tried the "protest vote" route in 2008 by not supporting McCain and voted for Barr, and I can tell you that, in the end, it doesn't work out well--the "worst of two evils" still prevails.

For the life of me, I don't understand why commentators, such as Ben here, keep referring to Ron Paul as an "isolationist". There is a huge difference between being an "isolationist" and being a "non-interventionist", at least in my opinion. For example, on an individual level, I see an "isolationist" as the being a hermit, while I see a "non-interventionist" as being a neighbor who minds his/her own business, and does not get involved in his/her neighbors' family disputes or family business. Ron Paul advocates the same sort of "good neighbor" policy as was advocated by both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson when they advocated, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Doug, I went that route in 2008 for exactly the same reason, and where did it get me? If you have always voted for the "best choice" rather than the "best choice of those that have a real chance of winning", how well has that worked for you? As I recall, John Anderson lost too. As much as I would like to believe that voting the "best choice" really gives a Third Party candidate a shot at winning an election, the fact of the matter is that Federal election laws prevent Third Parties from successfully running against the GOP and Dems on a national level. Remember: Federal election laws were passed by the U.S. Congress comprised of Dems and GOP. They are designed to be unfair to "outsiders".

Paulus, thank you for your advice regarding Davole-the-troll. Like Capt Shays, I made the mistake of thinking initially that Davole was interested in discussing facts. I will just ignore his/her immature and derogatory comments.

Davole, once again, you are wrong. I am a "Paulbot" and have been for about 15 yrs. I am also 64 years old, retired from the Army as a Lt Col after 28 yrs, and have been a Repub since 1968. I support Ron Paul because he holds true fidelity to the Constitution and its original intent, and as an Army officer, I took an oath "to support and defend the Constitution.....against all enemies, foreign and domestic.." If you really want to impress folks with your political knowledge, stick to arguing facts rather than making immature derogatory comments about other conservative Republicans.

Davole, that is a pretty asinine comment if you are serious with that remark. Did repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment which created Prohibition suddenly cause a dramatic increase in alcoholism and public intoxication? I am an old-timer--born in 1947--and I have never in my life used "recreational" or "illegal" drugs, and if decriminalizing that type of drugs comes into being, I do not plan to suddenly start smoking joints, sniffing "coke", or shooting up heroin. As Dr. Paul has stated before, as a physician he would not recommend anyone use recreational drugs, just as he would not recommend anyone use tobacco products or alcohol, because the use of those products is unhealthy. But making unhealthy choices should be a personal matter.

As a retired Army officer with 28 years of service (1964-1992), I can tell you that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with "trying to keep us safe & free", and everything to do with promoting the military/industrial complex just as President Eisenhower warned back in the 1950s. While I was serving in the military, I believed in the rightness of what we were doing and carried out my military responsibilities to the best of my ability. It was not until after I retired and began to look at politics through a different lens that I realized what the seemingly endless wars that we engaged in were all about, and it wasn't about protecting America from attack, it was all about imposing our politicians' desires on others.

I agree that unfortunately Ron Paul's greatest liability is his age, but certainly not his political philosophy. Ron Paul has had pretty much the same political philosophy since I first began to admire him about 20 years ago, and now that his long-time concerns about our republic's economy and world standing are coming true, American voters are finally beginning to see that Ron Paul has been right and the Party leaders of both major Parties have been wrong, but now our republic is in worse shape because we didn't heed Paul's warnings years ago. Although Dr. Paul may be too old to be elected, his philosophy is one that can be carried by another into the Oval Office, and that is what is important here.

While I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch, I have to disagree with the comment by Purdue poli-sci professor Rockman because Americans will have had a 4 year opportunity to see what sort of work Obama and his advisors can do in leading the nation during a critical time, and clearly Obama and the Dems have done a poor job of straightening out the mess they helped cause. Now Obama is a "known quantity", and it is poor. The GOP candidates may be weak, but they are not known to be poor, and I believe the voters will discard Obama as a bad choice.

You hit the nail on the head, Man-wolf! Excellent job of covering most of the bases.