What is in the water in Texas? Ross Perot, the Bush clan, and now Ron Paul.

What I had previously read about Paul convinced me that he is a total nut-job. His interview on MtP this Sunday gave me a different view.

Ron Paul

Our "Meet the Candidates" series continued Sunday as Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) joined us for an exclusive interview. Watch our netcast or read the transcript to find out where the congressman -- who has raised more money this quarter than any other Republican candidate for president -- stands on the major issues facing our nation. Plus, John Harwood & Chuck Todd shared their insights & analysis on Decision 2008 as we approach the Iowa caucuses.

Watch entire netcast now Read the transcript

When you listen to the candidates Paul (and Kucinich) come across as nut-jobs because they do something none of the other candidates do: they take a stand. Paul actually has some principles and he follows them through to conclusions. He appears to be logically consistent and by contrast that makes him seem nuts. Professional politicians are wiggly worms who never commit to anything in public.

The truth is, it is hard to be known by the entire nation. National politics is a big game, a media circus. What candidates do is campaign on emotions, indefinable traits that make you like a candidate but not actually know what that candidate thinks or will do. Obama is all about "change". Rudy is all about "security". Bush was all about "character". Edwards is going to "save the middle-class". Romney is about "family values".

The very last thing one of the front-runners is going to do is make a clear statement. Paul made quite a few in this interview:

• "I will abolish the income tax."
• "I will pull all of our troops out of foreign countries and slash military spending."
• "Our country is becoming a fascist state where military-industrial complex and medical-industrial complex call all the shots and run the government."
• "We need a very small federal government and let the states decide for themselves."

The reason other candidates dont want to make clear statements like this is because they dont want to get treated the way Paul did on MtP. Tim Russert has made a career of lofting softballs to politicians (American's love softball right? Its the only sport that lets you drink WHILE you are working out.) but he attacked Paul. I cant remember Russert being as hostile to any other guest and Paul handled it fairly well.

Or maybe it just seemed like Russert was attacking Paul because Paul has made clear statements for over 20 years. He criticized Reagan for talking about small government and then doing massive federal spending (like Bush/Cheney). He criticized Bush for campaigning against nation building and then marching our troops right out to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike the other "well Tim.." candidates, Paul has put his beliefs out there in writing and did a fair job answering direct questions about them.

While Paul seems a bit nutty because his ideas are so different from the status quo, it is also why he is so appealing, especially to the Internet crowd. He is a libertarian, a small government guy, and he has laid out specific changes he wants us to do. To be honest, a lot of his changes make sense and I can see their appeal.

I have to respect the guy for being true to his principles. Even more-so because it almost never happens. At best a candidate will bash the other party while skipping over his own inconsistencies or those of his party. Not Paul. He bashes Republicans just as hard as Democrats -- and he is right. We are losing control of our lives to corporate special interests and federal prying. He is right - the Republican party today is no different than the Democratic party when it comes to fiscal issues.

If you really want to see change in this country, you are not going to find it in any of the front-runners. Maybe it is time we shed a little more light on the fringes.