Many progressives here at the 'kos are praising Ron Paul's running for the RethugliKKKlan nomination. It is quite a stark contrast for this "anti-war" candidate to run against nine other 'ThugliKKKlan candidates who are rabidly pro-war.
Giuliani had this confrontation with Paul at the Fox News debate:
Now, before we go praising Ron Paul for what seems to be a parroting of a progressive talking point in regards to Iraq and 9/11, it should be noted that Ron Paul is a vile, evil racist:
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
source: http://everything2.com/...
I would also argue that Ron Paul's foreign policy is far more dangerous than George Bush's and Rudy Giulianni's. While on the surface, it might appear that on the issue of Iraq, a Ron Paul presidency might be tactically beneficial the single issue anti-war progressives here on 'kos, it would be a disaster for domestic policy issues such as choice, affirmative action and civil rights for African Americans (see his racist comments above).
Why is Paul's foreign policy more dangerous than Bush or Rudy's you ask? Because Ron Paul is an avowed isolationist firmly entrenched in the Pat Buchanan wing of the 'ThugliKKKlan party. These far right extremists may be anti-war, but they are anti-war for the wrong reasons. These 'ThugliKKKlans also opposed intervention in World War I & II, Vietnam and Kosovo. In regards to the Vietnam war, it may appear in hindsight that it was a foreign policy mistake, but one of the reasons why the isolationists opposed it was because of their seething hatred of the Johnson administration in regards to Civil Rights and Great Society programs. They opposed this war for the wrong reasons--unlike the New Left's correct reasons for opposing it: internationalism, human rights and respect for the Third World.
At least with Bush and Rudy, they accept the pretense of international cooperation and engagement. Ron Paul and the Buchananite "AmeriKKKa First" forces would have the US pulled out of the UN and allow the genocide in the Darfur region to persist indefinitely. Whereas the Democrats got it wrong for supporting the Vietnam war at first, WW 1&2 + Kosovo were morally justified and wars to advance progressive values. Although a Republican, Lincoln's support of the war against the South is another example of a moral, progressive war. (I apologize for prasing a Republican here on 'kos, but in my defense, Lincoln is probably the only decent GOPer to have ever been president--he would be considered a Democrat today). A more cursory investigation of Ron Paul's statements on Google also shows that we would have opposed intervention in WW2 and the Civil War as well.
The isolationists also preached a pacifist foreign policy in WW2 as a means of advancing their Fascist sympathies for Nazi Germany as well.
Sorry, I am much more comfortable with a Hillary presidency as opposed to a Ron Paul one. Hillary may have voted for the Iraq war, but at the time, it was considered political suicide for her and other Democrats to vote against it. The real fault with the Iraq war lies with Bush's handling of it. If Kerry was President, he would have handled this properly and engaged our international allies to bring a swift end to the conflict for this common cause.
I also suspect that Ron Paul's non-interventionist stance on foreign policy might be motivated by his opposition to Israel as well. This plays right into the hands of hardcore survivalists and the anti-semitic crowd who may be anti-war but are wrong on every other issue that is important to progressives.