Edit: These are my answers:

1. Choose a political party: Fists of Fury (a party headed by ferocious Shaolin monks)
2. Who’s your running mate?: The ghost of Jimi Hendrix; he’s a lefty, after all ;)
3. Finish this sentence: “When I’m president, _______________”: …everyone will have the right to three cans of whipped cream per annum, and the ability to wage ferocious cream wars in the streets.
4. Who/what are you going to bash this election year?: I think that Grover Cleveland’s got something to hide. Hoover, check his closet; and bring me his shoes.
5. Pick three countries to be a part of your axis of evil: The Maldives, Uzbekistan, and Switzerland — the Isosceles Triangle of Terror.
6. Pick a political figure to boot from an office and pick his/her replacement: The Secretary of Commerce — and I’ll stick a tribal chieftain in his place. Seriously, guys, bartering is the way to go.
7. FDR spent his first 100 days in office passing important legislation as a part of his “New Deal” program. How will you spend your first 100 days?: Instating Rastafarians as the heads of all of the major departments of the White House — because then, if something goes wrong, the people involved won’t be jackasses about it.
8. Bonus: What are we going to do about Cuba? Turn it into a floating palace of magic and mystery.

Your Jake Dahn link points to Jason Santa Maria. Oh, and yeah I agree.

“For example, when other countries have so successfully adopted national health care programs, such as Canada”

Um, Canada has one of the worst nationalized healthcare systems in the world. Ask a canadian, or check out this.

“Why does he oppose finding alternative energy sources to coal and oil?”

Because that isn’t the government’s problem nor prerogative, let alone expertise. Look at the ethanol snafu. Even the Economist has denounced it as an outright failure, and the Economist is a pretty good indicator.

“Why doesn’t he believe that global warming is man-made? “

Have you bothered to actually watch Ron Paul field questions on this topic? He blames global warming and environmental problems on big businesses running awry with their rights, and trampling public and private property with emissions. He also says that there is merit to both sides of the argument, and that at the moment there really is not a 100% definitive answer to why climate change is occurring. I’ll give more credibility to a candidate that encourages both sides to prove their views rather than going hard-line.

“What about the Kyoto protocol?”

1.) It was a failure to begin with, 2.) It’s not in line with libertarian views on economy or politics.

Queer rights

Ron Paul has made his stance quite clear - in line with most other classic libertarians, he believes special allotments for minorities tacitly encourage racism/heterosexism and so on. Associating persons with a categorically defined grouping is the classic means for abusive biopolitics by the state. He even fought against the Federal Marriage Amendment. I can’t say that I agree with the Marriage Protection Act that he supported, but at least it recognizes the right of states to decide what is / is not “marriage”.

Free trade

“The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.” (From the Republican Liberty Caucus position statement on Free Trade issues). Enough said.

Federal Support for Education

Another welfare burden that America doesn’t need. It’s time for the welfare state to rest. Read “Private Cures for Public Ills.” (Lawrence Reed, Foundation for Economic Education, 1996)

Seriously, actually make an effort to research a candidate independently before you go blathering away about what you read on some citizen-journalist weblog.

Canadian Healthcare is a landmark for the US? Canadian citizens are traveling to the US in DROVES to get medical treatment they have to wait YEARS for in Canada.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

This is the basis for my claim.

The flaw in Canada’s health care system is the bureaucracy, not the coverage, and not the benefits that result from it. If the paperwork and waits can be eliminated, which I’m sure is possible, then universal health care is very doable.

But the video link you gave me was a bit scary; I’ll try to get some of my Canadian friends to comment with an insider view.

Brandon: For the record, I did go through and look at his voting record and I have watched several debates so far. I even watched his appearance on The Colbert Report for good measure. I would never write a post of this nature without research. I just don’t agree with the man. I saw that he fought against the gay marriage ban — there’s some merit in that (I see you call it “queer rights”); I see the validity in some of his arguments against government departments, and most of it in the fight against big businesses. However, I feel that allowing the states to decide their own policies on issues such as gay marriage would be a step towards legislative disunity — that’s one of the problem inherent in the creation of “civil unions”. What’s the point of having policies that change from state to state? I’m not sure a confederation is in our best interests.

After reading both yours and James’ comments on Canadian health care, I did ask one of my Canadian friends who said that the system worked rather well. Every system has its flaws, and Canada’s probably results from poor organization.

I lean pretty heavily towards liberalism, I’ll admit that — which is why my stances are inconsistent with Paul’s. But I do make an honest attempt to find the candidate that is best for me — and this post was a branch in the opposite direction: to explain misgivings I had about Ron Paul.