He is not!
Ron Paul needs to explain his numbers in comparison to Obama's. By my calculations Obama II will spend $600 billion more on military than Paul would over those same 4 years. (Someone please help me with the math! Tell me I am wrong!)
Of course, Paul wants deep cuts in domestic spending as well. That is not good, and progressives should resist him and other conservatives who think they are doing the American people a favor by deeply cutting domestic spending. The question is: if progressives go with Obama, where are the cuts coming from? Note: it's not... "will they come?"...they will come in one form or another.
Progressives keeping the faith with Obama are going to be forced to negotiate with blue dog Democrats in defense contractor districts, Republicans who will never get over their war fetish and liberals who cower. Does anybody doubt that any cuts in military spending come with a price: at least dollar for dollar equal cuts in domestic spending. Conversely, the only way to preserve funding for domestic programs with this set of negotiating partners is to forego cuts in defense.
If progressives rescue Ron Paul ( and he does need rescuing if the goal is winning), we can get much deeper cuts in defense cuts. We rescue him in the primaries and then demand that we progressives design the domestic cuts of at least $400 billion over 4 years, sending half of the savings to the states and using the other half for debt reduction.
My guess is progressives will have to accept significant cuts in domestic spending regardless who occupies the White House. Paul needs to be prepared to lower the total of his proposed domestic cuts if he wants a winning coalition. If his cuts in domestic spending are the same or less than what Obama is willing to agree to, progressives will be left without excuse.
Regardless of the numbers, if progressives and libertarians refuse to get together, corporatists will continue to rule the economy by using cultural conservatives and cultural liberals, keeping them occupied in their usual arguments over wedge issues. (Wall Street is still the biggest occupier, merrily squatting all over tea parties and occupy movements.)
So with whom are you willing to make a deal? To quote the rock band, old time Rush, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Making that choice is what his election is all about. But let me clarify one more time:
1.) Progressives, if you choose to vote for Obama/Biden, you are choosing very small cuts in military spending and very deep cuts in domestic spending, and some debt reduction
2.) Libertarians, if you choose to not make a deal with progressives, you are choosing Romney/Santorum, increases in military spending and deep cuts in domestic spending and some debt reduction, or the same as above.
3.) Coalitionists, if you choose Paul/Kucinich, you are choosing deep cuts in military spending, comparatively smaller cuts in domestic spending, a greater amount of debt reduction, and substantial increases in spending at the state level with money block-granted from the federal government through cuts in both military and domestic spending.
Name your choice.... 1, 2, or 3...?