For example, I had begun my post describing Paul as a libertarian-leaning isolationist due to his disdain for every free trade agreement known to man.  Further research revealed that he is in fact staunchly supportive of free trade (a traditional libertarian stance) but against treaties, agreements and organizations that restrict our sovereignty in the matter.  Other preconceived impressions of him were also found wanting.  I realized that his message sounds a lot different coming from him than from the mainstream media.

As one would expect from a former libertarian presidential candidate, Paul never met a tax increase he liked and never met a tax cut he didn't.  On taxes specifically and fiscal issues in general, his views are very compatible with my own.  On most social issues, again as expected, his views are more liberal which does present some difficulties for me as a social conservative.  While he opposes hate crime legislation, he does not want to define marriage as a union between one woman and one man, and in terms of human relationships, he supports permitting "any association that's voluntary," at least at the federal level.  (Yikes!)

All is not amiss in the social arena, however.  Regarding abortion, I was surprised to see that Paul diverges from the normal libertarian view that the choice should be left up to the mother and her doctor.  Paul is pro-life, and apparently decidedly so.  The former obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 babies has said, "I can assure you, life begins at conception."  Yet, his overriding desire in the abortion debate seems to be to get the federal government out of it entirely.  He wants instead to let the states decide how to handle abortion legislation.  Given his vote against a bill restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions, one might surmise his concern for the life of the unborn is less important to him than his eagerness to adhere to his federalist ideals.  On the plus side, if he were president, his libertarian convictions would lead him to appoint strict constructionist justices who would not legislate from the Supreme Court bench.

The biggest point of conflict between him and me is his foreign policy stance, specifically regarding the military.  Whether you agree with the Iraq war or not, I strongly believe we should not abandon the Iraqi people prematurely.  The surge has been showing definite progress, and I believe a significant window has been opened for Iraqis to achieve a stable Iraqi form of democracy.  Paul's view is that we should get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.  But his radical designs wouldn't stop there.  All troops now serving outside the United States would be brought home if he had his way.  These intentions are disturbing to me and represent drastic measures I would not support.  That said, if the Iraqi withdrawal could be done over time, enough time realize the potential progress we've seen underway to date, I might be able to accept it so long as the terrorists do not see a deadline.  That would serve to strengthen their resolve and weaken the willingness of Iraqi men and women to help us defeat them.

Overall, much of what Paul stands for connects with me and much does not.  On the positive side, it has been a while since a legitimate small government personality like Ron Paul has gained such prominence.  And his radical notions of abolishing the Departments of Energy, Education and Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service, while probably too outlandish to the see the light of day in Washington, strike a cord in my fiscally conservative heart of hearts.

On social issues, his personal pro-life stance and libertarian judicial restraint convictions adequately, if not fully, satisfy my stipulations on abortion.  His federalist ideals on the issue do raise concern, but I am convinced that he would do no harm to pro-life causes as president.  On the negative side, his view that we should "repeal the whole drug war" and legalize illegal drugs does not sit well with me.  And I do not like the fact that Paul does not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, though I appreciate that his views preclude his support for hate crimes legislation and sexual orientation clauses in business practices.

On a personal note, Ron Paul does have something that very few politicians have - character and consistency.  On Capitol Hill, he has a 20-year record of loyalty to his ideals.  Even if I disagree with more than a few of his positions on the issues, I do believe Mr. Paul will remain true to his convictions regardless of what external forces vie to influence him.  Beyond him, Mike Huckabee and perhaps John McCain, I see very little in the way of character among the presidential hopefuls in 2008.

In the end, contrary to what I had expected before I started this venture, Ron Paul is not a bad second option for this conservative Christian.  I cannot say I am a Ron Paul supporter - Huckabee is still clearly my first choice - but the idea of President Paul is immeasurably more appealing to me than President Clinton, Obama, or Edwards (or President Giuliani or Romney, for that matter).