Uh? Some of his fiscal stuff is definitely a little loonie, though.

I first learned about Paul only in these primaries. Some of the things he stood by I actually didn't mind, and he certainly stuck to his guns. I never got over the fact that he pushed so hard for 'government out' but was terrible about women's reproductive health rights. He even dedicated much of his time to publishing a book about 'how to be against government infringement on private space while still being anti-choice'. That was the most major, major, major barrier for me.

It is my understanding that Ron Paul believes that the federal government has no business protecting any and all Non-Enumerated Rights; that all such Rights belong to the State and Not The People, as in abortion. I also do not agree with Mr. Paul's desire to prohibit the votors from choosing their U.S. Senators. He wants each State legislature to select their U.S Senators in order to resurrect State Representation in the name of the State government and not The People.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul

I agree with Paul on the 17th Amendment. It changed the face of the Senate from representing the states to all the people in the state and therefore made the Senate more responsive to public pressure when it was supposed to be more insulated, at least in comparison to the House.

If the Senators were liable to their respective states, perhaps more fiscal responsibility would ensue.