To be fair, I'd rather not have statements like @Crickett. It makes it seem like Ron Paul supporters are Paulbots.
I assume to the on the fence voters, Paul having much more "meat" won't make sense if you have no desire to study the oppostion.
I'm no expert at gathering facts but looking at the link someone recently provided:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jon_Huntsman_VoteMatch.htm
That is a trade we should not make. If Republicans ignore life, the deficit we will face is one that is much more destructive. It will be a deficit of the heart and of the soul.
This reads too much of a flimsy statement to me. It sounds like this guy is anti-abortion for the sake of lacking any consideration for people who need abortions. With Ron, at least, he is willing to lay out how the child has the rights. Sometimes policies, though the same, should not be viewed as being the same.
Huntsman also supports civil unions. Paul would rather leave it to the states. Philosophically, this may not be that big of a deal but Paul would actually create a road for limited government while Huntsman is treating it as purely a social issue.
This is the first major disagreement though and wow it is a huge one:
Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)
He's also looking to waste more of American's taxes on the War on Drugs:
Favors topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(-3 points on Social scale)
His view on taxes is also very smoke screen. It reads like a statement of a person who simply wants to get the Republican vote:
Opposes topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Pro-business agenda, including targeted tax cuts
I highly doubt Ron would be pro-business at all.
If I'm an American (which I'm not), I would also probably want to hear more on his views on the Patriot Act and privacy.
