1) I never thought much of him prior to the interview and my fears were confirmed by the interview.
2) You are correct in that he is well informed. He's been in Washington long enough to have picked up a few facts.
3) He is an isolationist that believes we should never go anywhere.
4) I have to agree with him that our military is overburdened and stretched too thin by continual deployments in relatively safe regions. I also believe we should bring the majority of our troops home from Iraq, but we can't just yank them out which is what he appears to advocate.
5) I didn't hear any substantive plan for replacing the income tax and I'm not sure where his supporters think that revenue will come from, but it appears crazy on the face of it. I believe the IRS should be reworked and that the income tax laws need to be revised and simplified, but abolishing it is a simple minded solution with few alternatives (that he laid out)
6) I suppose you only give assistance to the people you know personally and like? Some of us actually give our time, money and assistance to those in need on the basis that they need it not a popularity contest.
7) I honestly don't know enough about trade or the Fed to comment on that one so I'm leaving it alone... However, I will say that since most other things flying out of his mouth appear idiotic then I can only assume his stance on these things follow suit.
Immigration - isolationist mumbo jumbo. Obviously we need to figure out a way to maintain border security and I don't believe there is one candidate, Dem or Rep, that is advocating we open all the borders. The key is cracking down on employers - period. You lock up the employers for giving out the jobs.
9) You failed to mention his intention to abolish public schools and social security - wow.

His views seem to be seated in oversimplification of complex issues. You can't fix education by getting rid of public schools any more than you can fund our government by getting rid of the IRS.

You also failed to mention my absolute FAVORITE part of the interview when Russert nailed him to the wall on his earmarks.

Here is a guy who rails against earmarks and yet has submitted over $400 MILLION in earmarks over the last decade for his district.

What a joke this guy is! He claims to "vote" against them all the while knowing they will pass and that if he doesn't play the game then his district will vote him out. Seems he is far more concerned with staying in Congress than following his conscience.

Just wondering - would you really vote for a guy who says he is against something that he actually actively participates in? If so, why?