He's unfit for the presidency?

If he took the office, would he change YOUR mind?

If he hated butter pecan ice cream, would the commanding power of this office compel legions of other to hate it as well?

Unlike most of the other Republican nimrods, Ron Paul is enough of a libertarian to (hopefully) not try to use the office to impose his views on such matters on to the rest of us.

Are you saying the glib Chicago thug is preferable? The one with the Mexican killer attorney general? The guy who is making Bush look like a tightwad as he loots the Treasury for his supporters?

Yes, I'd hold my nose and pull the lever for Ron Paul, if it came to that. I think he's wrong on several major issues, but I'd recognize my country when he was done.

If you are looking for perfection, you aren't running, and anyone else will disappoint you. Who will harm you the least?

If I were running for office, I'd not be running on what I will DO, but rather what I will UNDO.

Ok....well I have a question that will shatter your belief in evolution. If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? I mean Christianity came from Judaism and we don't see anymore of those Jews around now do we?

I have to wonder how many people in the GOP are NOT special creationists but rather are expected to be as such and answer accordingly -- no different than pandering on ethanol. I had holy roller science teachers in the bible belt who ministered in class being saved AND favored Darwin. I'd die a happy man on the spot out of overwhelming joy if a GOP candidate had the balls to answer a "teach the controversy" question by saying that students should learn BOTH Gouldian Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkinsian Selfish Gene Gradual Evolution.

Get with the program already. The only religious fundamentalism is Islamic fundamentalism. There is no religious fundamentalism in the USA unless it's Islamic fundamentalism.

Barack Obama attends church regularly. But he probably doesn't believe in God anyway, so it's okay, because it's just another lie, and what else do we expect from him?

Voters deserve what they get.

Everyone has some irrationality or cognitive dissonance on some subject or other. It is recognizing that irrationality and working to break it.

I think a large portion of the founding fathers were what we would call atheists today. Back then they called themselves deists. They thought God® created the world and man and then went away. Hence the minimal mention of God® in the Declaration, Constitution, and the quick adoption of the First Amendment.

Unfortunately a large proportion of the U.S., left and right, still has enough indoctrination by the church that you can't get elected without it. Does anybody remember what happened to Jesse Ventura after he stated a comment on religion?

I guess I'm a nitwit as well because I don't believe in Darwinism. Oh, people evolve alright. Some just not as much as others. If you are looking to agree 100% with ANY candidate, good luck to you. IMHO, Ron Paul is the only one that wants to actually try to fix the problems in our country. I don't see anyone else willing to cut spending or entitlements, not to mention spending for the oh so corrupt military industrial complex.

Disagreements on things such as "creationism" versus "evolution/Darwinism" are minimal. I would much rather have Ron Paul in office than Gingrich or Romney, who are just different versions of Obama with an R behind their names.

Ok....well I have a question that will shatter your belief in evolution. If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? I mean Christianity came from Judaism and we don't see anymore of those Jews around now do we?

Puplepen, that is perfect! I've always struggled for a quick response for the morons who say, "well if we came from apes, why are there still apes?"

I try to explain the concept of "common ancestors," but then their eyes glaze over.

For all those who state that Ron Paul wants to "fix" the country and so should be preferred as a candidate - the problem is that is "fix" is the what broke the country in the first place. Deregulation and a Fed inspired by the ideas of Ayn Rand are what screwed us over in the first place. Electing Ron Paul, who named his son "Rand," to fix the problems caused by the ideas of Ayn Rand is like putting ten foxes in your chicken coop to keep the other foxes out.
Right now there are no major party candidates who would be good Presidents. Including Obama. The only choice is to vote for a third party candidate.

Oh, you wouldn't care for my beliefs. I am one of those crazy creationists :) I believe in my higher power and don't really care if others do or not. I'm not here to make choices for other people, I believe that is something we should all do for ourselves.

I don't really agree with Ron Paul's view on abortion either (not sure why it was brought up since this article wasn't about that, but okay). I personally consider it to be murder. I also think a woman does have a choice, she has the choice to spread her legs or not. She has the choice to use protection. An obstetrician is liable for not giving proper medical care and can be sued if there is damage to the child. A person causing an accident and killing an unborn child can be charged with manslaughter. A "fetus" has inheritance rights if the father dies before the child is born. We consider a "fetus" a person in all of these cases. Yet when a woman gets pregnant and decides it's too much trouble, we don't consider it murder or manslaughter or anything else. We call it "her right to choose." I, personally, feel it should be outright illegal, not turned back to the states. So, I don't agree with him on that either. I'm sure your reasons for not agreeing are not the same.

I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils my entire life, as that is all we've had to choose from. I won't do it any longer. While I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, I can agree with him on enough that I feel he is the best choice.

I don't care who folks support. I just want them to be intelligent enough to do their own research and make their own choices. I would like to think there are more important issues to agree/disagree with a candidate on than Creationism/Darwinism, but I guess we all have to decide what is important to us and what simply isn't.

Our brave soldiers have been fighting in foriegn lands for....how long? Since Kosovo? The first Iraq war? 20 years or more? Our liberties are being constantly stripped away. The economy sucks. People out of work by the millions. National debt of 15+ TRILLION DOLLARS....and THIS is why you will not vote for the only man who even acts like he wants to fix it? Because of your "world view" you would allow the soldeirs to keep dying and people to keep suffering? Because of something that has NOTHING to do with the problems this country is facing? You're pulling my leg right? Please tell me this whole thing is sarcasm and I just missed it.

The rest is just brain pan size comparison. It won't fix a thing.

I agree with Ron Paul's criticisms about the US being the world's policemen. However, he goes too far--his overall view foreign policy is extremely isolationist and downright dangerous to US interests AND national security.

Huntsman was right; dealing with China IS the dominant foreign policy issue of the 21st century.

Ultimately, though, the problem with Ron Paul is the same problem with Obama and Carter--he simply would not have the respect of Congress and like it or not, to get things done you have to gain some respect from Congress and work with them. Simply having ideas and intentions isn't going to cut it.

How can one be a physician and not believe in evolution? Would Paul advocate treating MRSA with penicillin? I think this must be some pandering to the anti-science parts of the Republican base.

I would like to think there are more important issues to agree/disagree with a candidate on than Creationism/Darwinism, but I guess we all have to decide what is important to us and what simply isn't.

"Creationism/Darwinism" isn't the issue.

A belief in the basic tenets of science is the issue.

Paul is consistent on one thing: his pandering to the Religious Right. When it comes to abortion, same-sex marriage and creationism, his libertarian streak goes kablooey. Sure is a crazy coincidence that those are the three hot-button issues that the social values wing of the GOP holds most dear.

Oi, don't they discuss how to sidestep gotcha questions in ther strategy meetings?

'and what does THAT have to do with a tanked economy?'
Paul stepped on a landmine there, but the trap was transparent. He could also have said: 'I'll answer you the day you get an answer from the President about that.'

Gotta realize that all such questions are asked as if you are an enemy to defeat.

All such people should make the delineation between public policy and private belief. You can get away from the bogdown over Roe that way too... It is a privacy issue.

No way Crid (12:55 AM). Butter pecan ice cream is only second to bacon.

I do not base my vote on religous beliefs, unless a politician is a Moslem. Politicians have more of a chance to regulate my bacon and ice cream than my religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Amy, would mind not flogging this stupid canard? Ron Paul's position on this, as he has described in print, is that evolution happens, but his religious belief is the evolution isn't the whole story. It's basically the same position that the Anglican church came to in the decade or so after Darwin published Origins of Species.

Ron Paul is terrible for libertarianism. He gives the entire movement a bad name. This is not a good thing, as I consider myself a Reform Libertarian.

Amy, would mind not flogging this stupid canard? Ron Paul's position on this, as he has described in print, is that evolution happens, but his religious belief is the evolution isn't the whole story.

No, as he expresses on the tape, he doesn't accept evolution at all:

"I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all."

Unless he has two different messages for two different audiences, I'll take him at his word here: He doesn't accept evolution.

"I think it's a theory...and I don't accept it as a theory." - Ron Paul

And people want to call him crazy.

"I'm not here to make choices for other people, I believe that is something we should all do for ourselves."

Belinda, not only does your VOTE make those choices for others, despite your denial, it is clear that you haven't done any research - because "Darwin", although it is the only name the laity knows, is not in any way responsible for the vast body of material available today.

It is a convenient handle, though, when you try to demote actual field investigation to just another belief system. Unfortunately, that's both dishonest and fallacious.

"the oh so corrupt military industrial complex."

Hate to break this to you, but the military is by far the least corrupt part of the federal government. If you want to see corruption, go look at Eric Holder's Justice Department, or the Solyndra-pwned Energy Department. And of the corruption that does exist in the military, a lot of it is a direct consequence of having to deal with Congress. (Barbara Boxer's husband is fabulously wealthy thanks to awards of no-bid military construction contracts, which Boxer's committee controls. The SF Gate has run stories on this, and they can't get the AP wire to pick them up.) Don't insult our military by using a phrase coined by Stalin's minions to describe them.

It is quite proper to debate what role our military should play in the world today. But Paul doesn't want to just pursue a policy of isolationism; he wants to dismantle the military altogether. Maybe if the world sees us lay down our arms, they will lay down theirs too... kum-by-ya!

(Barbara Boxer's husband is fabulously wealthy thanks to awards of no-bid military construction contracts, which Boxer's committee controls. The SF Gate has run stories on this, and they can't get the AP wire to pick them up.)

Probably because it's Dianne Feinstein, not Barbara Boxer, and her many conflicts of interest with her husbandf's contracts have been widely reported - not just by, or in, the San Francisco Chronicle.