First, he is not an isolationist. He simply believes, as most of our best presidents did, that we should not intervene in every regional conflict, and that “Peace through Strength” does not always entail invasion or bombing. Reagan had “dialog” with the Soviets. Dialog doesn’t mean compromising our values, and any fair reading of Dr. Paul would show that he isn’t a “wimp”. He simply agrees with 70% of Americans that Iraq was a wrong move at the wrong time with the wrong strategy. The world is a dangerous place, as it always has been, but that doesn’t suggest that our best strategy is to invade, invade, invade.

Secondly, while Dr. Paul will put great emphasis on controlling illegal immigration, we shouldn’t imagine that militarized borders would be a cornerstone of his techniques (although Bret is correct that we’d likely use far more National Guard resources on this effort). Instead, he advocates reducing the incentives for illegal immigration. He also believes that screening for criminals, and malefactors should be a part of our approach.

Ron Paul offers a good alternative, and one that can actually win, unlike the warmed-over “stay the course” philosophy that most of the Republicans are offering. I mean, really, do you expect to win with “stay the course” when the president and congress are polling barely above single digits?

1). the president may introduce federal troops when such an introduction is arguably pursuant to the duty of the usfg to prevent domestic violence (ie: the la riots of 92)

2). state troops activated by governors at the request of the president

3). troops deployed by the executive pursuant to the insurrection act

on a related note, if you are looking for a candidate who would approach the immigration problem by trying to impact domestic politics in mexico (ie: free trade), check out barack obama. extra kick: obama isnt out of his gourd. extra extra kick? hes not 473 years old.