Now before anybody starts to jump the gun on this one, let me explain a couple of things.

More than 90% of the Republican contenders being spoken about for a Presidential run in 2012 will make this list. The only reason that Ron Paul is the first that I am going to write about is that, for Christmas, I received his book "Revolution". I'm not entirely done with the book yet (being under 200 pages, I'm about 3/4 the way through) but I've already read through the chapters that talk about the things that I disagree with him on. The rest of the book is on economic issues, which I agree with the man on many of these issues.

This will be something like the Green Series that I did (and am continuing to do, I just haven't been in much of a mood to do the necessary research on other "green" forms of energy and would hate to write a half-arsed piece) only it will be my own personal feelings on each Republican Presidential possible for 2012. I've wanted to start on this for a little while, and decided the best way to do it is, well, to sit down and do it.

Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman for the 14th District in Texas, is of a much more libertarian, state-rights mindset than most candidates, and there are some issues in that realm that I am in support of. However, more often than not I feel that he takes the ideas a step too far. A perfect example would be the "Audit the FED bill". I do support this idea. Transparency is great, and there is no reason that the Federal Reserve can't show what they've been doing and when and why. Open up the books and lets all take a look. However, Paul's latest book (which I have yet to read, however is titled "End the FED"), which deals with the elimination of the Federal Reserve, is a touch too far for my liking. At this point, the elimination of the Federal Reserve is not only unrealistic but dangerous. The idea that America could possibly go back to the gold standard is absurd. On top of that, if we are to audit the FED, it needs to happen soon if at all. By auditing our Federal Reserve, we risk other countries (and our own people) losing complete faith in our economic structure (not that there is much faith now, but regardless). If we wait to pass this bill until the economy is back on the upturn, we run the risk of putting out the match before it has a chance to fully light. Right now is the time.

I do agree with him that the campaign against earmarks wasn't enough. A couple million here and there compared to a humongous budget is like spitting into the wind.

Now, the things that I strongly oppose: his objection to our countries foreign policy. I'll be the first to say that we should certainly think twice before picking and choosing winners in conflicts across the globe, but to become complete non-interventionists is, again, unrealistic. We have eyes and ears (as pointed out by Paul) in over 160 countries currently for a good reason. Part of the reason that we don't have 9/11 type attacks more often is exactly because of those eyes and ears.

Also, I don't personally have a problem with "nation building", if it is done correctly. I know this is very unpopular with a lot of different people, and Paul isn't the only person that will make this list that will be opposed to the idea, however history has shown that no two democratic countries have ever been at war with each other. The more countries that are democracies, the better we are as a planet.

Since Paul has become a major political face, he has acquired quite the cult following, with his supporters calling him "Dr. Paul". The problem, however, is that others call him "Dr. No", because he specifically won't vote on something if he thinks that it is unconstitutional. I'm sure on a great many things, I would agree with him when it comes to those decisions, however to me it's one thing to say "I don't agree with this bill or that bill and will therefore vote no" and another to label EVERYTHING "unconstitutional". There are several different ways to view the Constitution, and while I'm a bit more traditional in the viewpoint of the Constitution as well, not EVERYTHING is unconstitutional.

If he could reel back a notch or two on economic policy and change his mind a few notches on foreign policy, I could support him. On social issues I have very few objections, since he is conservative on those issues but believes, like I do, that the best way to handle those issues are to make them state issues. As it stands, however, I can't cast a vote in his favor for President.