1. He is overly radical in his championing of the free market and seems likely to slash and burn key social programs in the name of a balanced budget (which is a necessity but thebudget must be balanced with care). I myself tend toward the monetarist approach in the great economic debate but I believe and support key Keynesian initiatives in moderation. I do not believe that Paul’s bias allows him to take the same approach. He is too dogmatic in his economics. Libertarianism at its extreme is inherently flawed, in that it defers to the simplistic, as does in all irony its Marxist antithesis.
2. He would follow an isolationist foreign policy, which at a time when the West needs strong leadership in the fight against Islamism would spell disaster. One need not look further than the inter war years and the growth of Fascism and Stalinism in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s to see what happens when Good Nations do nothing against an evil.
3. He is weak on illegal immigration an issue which will become more and more pertinent in defining the national character in the 2010s.
4. He often makes historical errors when discussing foreign policy question indicating that his grasp of history is suspect.
5. Paul is supported by some of the most loathsome kooks in American Politics: Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Conspiracy theorists etc. He has not sufficiently distanced himself from these extremists which is disturbing as such members will no doubt gain more influence within the Paulista realm.
6. Paul is no fan of the US Military and his policies could jeopardize US Security initiatives world wide by a following through with a spate of base closing. America’s enemies will certainly see this as a sign of weakness in the decay of the nation.