Let me address this point by point:
The thing with Ron Paul is he's always been a typical politician.
RP has been the sole NO vote on bills more than any other congressman ever. He has been talking about the monetary system since he joined congress and been the lone voice for returning to a gold standard. He never was a "team player" when it came to GOP vs Dems. So yeah, he's definitely a typical politician.
The mythology about him that he has some higher moral standards than any of the others really just comes from a couple of issues he's been vocal about, particularly his stance against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which flew directly in the face of Bush & Company's neoconservative war-for-profit model of governance.
Again, he's been the lone NO vote more than enough times to disprove this.
The only thing I can see justifying this kind of a claim is the earmarks he pushed for in a spending bill a few years back. He ended up voting against the bill in the end though, since it was a govm. stimulus bill.
But he doesn't do this because of money he gets from lobbyists. He's actually doing it for his constituency, which is more than you could say about almost any other congressman. Not that it was right, but that's as much you could find on him public policy wise.
Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist,
LOLNO. Non-interventionism =/= Isolationism. An isolationist wants to restrict foreign trade and protect domestic markets as much as possible, as well as not involving oneself at all abroad. Ron Paul wants to have free trade all around the world and wants the LOWEST tariffs possible. How is that isolationist? Just because he doesn't want to bomb, but use diplomacy he's suddenly an isolationist.
he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected,
Remember the debate a few months back, when people booed him? They were discussing the motives for terrorists, and he said it's because of a century of interventionist and occupationist foreign policy in the region. He was BOOED for speaking the truth, and his response was "I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was (for 9/11)".
and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.
Well, this is purely subjective, and I must say it's very hard for him to articulate his positions so that as many as possible can understand his positions. It's too difficult to in one minute or thirty seconds, articulate a position that is so against the status quo.
It's not just silly, it's factually bankrupt. You can't cut $1 Trillion from a $1.3 Trillion budget especially when almost $600 Billion of that budget is the military. If "people who failed 4th grade mathematics" is a good constituency, then he's right on the money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budgetIt's not 1.3 Trillion, it's about 3.8 Trillion and the revenue is about 2.2 Trillion. Yup, there's a 1,6 Trillion HOLE in the budget. It's about time some one puts a cap on that spending. Hate to say it, but your statement is factually bankrupt.