See, and now I think we're getting to the definitive core difference on how you and I see our political systemyou're still enamored with this idea that that big establishment candidate on the left is significantly different from the big establishment candidate on the right, enough so that you're willing to vote for someone like Obama in order to simply block the GOP candidate. I would never vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich either (unless the whole total long-shot Ron Paul VP thing played out favorably, as I described in my post to Egan). Sure, you can talk all about how Obama is in favor of gay rights, is pro-abortion, isn't one who "feels largely guided by his/her religion" (Obama claims otherwise about himself), etc, and talk up those issues to be as big as you want them to be, but doesn't that just represent the same tired-as-hell set of social issue arguments that has sculpted the political narrative in the US for far too long? That's how the party lines have been drawn for a long time, but all the while, the issues that Ron Paul talks about have been cooperatively ignored by both parties; both parties represent big government, overspending, bailouts, endless undeclared warfare, and the erosion of our personal liberties. Aren't those issues infinitely more important than social-policy issues? Furthermore, you act as if Ron would outrightly ban abortion and ban gay rights at a federal level, which you already know he most certainly would not...Ron wants to remove federal jurisdiction from those issues and leave it up to the states! I don't see how that's a cop-out at all...Ron, as the President, isn't going to interfere with your rights, but if your state leaders try to, then you can take it up with them. I just don't see how you can possibly argue that shrinking federal power and influence can be construed as a bad thing or as a cop-out.