Thank tonton for trying to tell everyone what I think and would do and would support. Or whatever.
First the question jimmac poses is really irrelevant to the point I was making, but I'll address it anyway. In terms of a specific person or politician or candidate, I would say that Ron Paul most consistently presents a consistent and cohesive view of liberty that I support. Many call him a "libertarian", he officially runs as a "Republican", he has most frequently characterized himself as a "constitutionalist" (well there ought to be at least one in Congress.)
All in all I'd say he best represents my own views.
For those who will jump to the immediate (and superficial) conclusion like "See! I told
you you were a Republican
!" I'd like to remind you that Ron Paul has been rejected, dismissed and ticked off "mainstream" establishment party Republicans (and neocons in particular) almost as much as he has from Democrats or liberals. Also, some Democrats/liberals/progressives might find that they actually agree with him on some issues (if any actually took the time to listen to him.)
Now, is Ron Paul electable to the presidency? Almost certainly not. He doesn't simply tell people what they want to hear and make all sorts of grand promises of great things with little or not cost. He doesn't sound as eloquent or pander as well as someone like Barack Obama, for example. He'll likely never get elected president.
But that is my specific alternative. If I could have voted for him in the last election I would have. I couldn't because he wasn't on the ballot and my ballot did not have an option to write in a different name/candidate.
But back to the more relevant point of my previous post: The point was that just because someone (like myself) is critical of Barack Obama does not automatically mean I "want to go back to the Bush" approach. That's simply an illogical and (at this point) stupid assumption.