When I hear about how Extreme Ron Paul's positions are I have the desire to agree, but generally for different reasons. My issue with Paul, as I've said before, is that the man appears to have either little grasp, or little ability to articulate, pragmatism and realism. Whether he just doens't possess those traits OR he is horrible at explaining his views in such a way that you understand he does have them, I don't know. But i have a distinct feeling from him its one of the two.
For example, his defense policy. In a general sense, I agree with his defense policy. Lowering our man power abroad, limiting "world policing", stop nation building, use alternative means of dealing with terrorists, etc. However, its the extreme's he apparently wishes to go, and the expediency to get there, that is problematic to me. For example, I believe its ridiculous to think that instability in the world has no possible chance of affecting us in a negative way and at times acting as the "world police" may be in our countries interest. Our role and its use should be significantly reduced, but not something that is completely off the table. Similarly, with the advert of new technology, it is likely we could do away with a number of bases around the world in a strategic sense, allowing us to maintain capability to reasonably conduct operations if need be the world over while cutting many bases. However, it appears Paul would rather remove all of our foreign bases, significantly hurting our strategic power that aids in our defense of ourselves or allies. On both of these as well, it is not just the length that it appears Paul wishes to go but the seemingly speed, which by the way he talks indicates a 0 to 60 in 3 seconds type of situation. In both cases I think significant and expediant progress in drawing down of the actions would be necessary, while at the same time understanding to the effects of system shock need to be given.
Much of the same problems can be found in many of Paul's views that could give even a conservative pause, and I can easily see looking "extreme" to someone on the left. Perhaps Paul realizes or believes that you're not going to one day have a Department of Education and the next day its completely gone, or that one day you'll have dozens and dozens of military bases and the next month none. However, if he does believe this, he's HORRIBLE at articulating them in the common political arena that is viewed people who do not go out and independently significantly research him themselves.
Its that reason why, honestly...given how Presidential debates function...I believe Obama would trounce Paul. Not because Obama's ideas are better. But because, from all i've seen of him, Paul is absolutely incapable of explaining his positions and why they're important in a way that the average voter can listen to, understand, grasp, and agree with. His ability to connect, to simplify, and to communicate on a layman level rather than that of a political intellectual is lacking due to his lack of traditional political charisma.
Another poster put it well and I'll say it in a similar way. Ron Paul would trounce Barack Obama in an officially judged debate on some college campus in the ivy leagues. Barack Obama would trounce Ron Paul in a political debate where the judges are the voters viewing it.