He pledged, at the recent GOP "values voter" debate to:
1) Increase funding for abstinence education;
2) Stop federal funding of schools that "promote homosexual propaganda" (whatever THAT is). Presumably, the residents and parents of the school district punished by the feds for noting that gay people exist would be expected to continue paying taxes -- they'd just have their money spirited off to other school districts.
Both of these are noted in the AP reporting (as well as "values voter" web sites).
Now, he wasn't in disagreement at the VV debate with the other GOP folks there -- but I hardly think that's reassuring.
One can also make an argument that he's "more libertarian than the other Republicans," but that's not only debatable -- it's damning with faint praise.
The notion that Kucinich cannot be a libertarian is a truism -- someone who supports socialized medicine and income redistribution simply cannot be, right?
But Ron Paul is advanced as a libertarian -- despite all these unlibertarian things he's promoting/supporting. Which leaves the question open -- why, exactly, is he a libertarian again? And why do his supporters have carte blanche to attack other presidential candidates as unsufficiently libertarian when Ron Paul is unsufficiently libertarian on a number of issues himself?
These are two questions that haven't been answered to my satisfaction yet, and one his supporters just don't seem too keen on answering. And every day that passes, it seems Paul makes another unlibertarian commitment to the Republican right wing that his libertarian supporters expect Libertarians to just ignore.
Hence, my outspokenness on this issue. At some point, Ron Paul is going to take a position that embarrasses his libertarian supporters if he keeps this up.
Cheers,
Brian