It's one thing if you're an anti-war conservative with no other
place to go, so you decided to vote for Ron Paul in the primary
because you think that's the more principled thing to do, but over
at NRO,
Todd Seavey actually tries to make the case for Paul as a
viable general election candidate:
And for those who say it can't happen, here's the
beauty part: Get Paul through the primaries, to the Republican
nomination, and he has the tools to take on Hillary. He plainly
gets the libertarian swing voters that the Republicans lost in
2006, he should garner most conservative votes when contrasted with
Hillary, and -- here's the clincher -- he gets a huge share of the
bourgeoning antiwar vote to boot. Think about it: Clinton has
already alienated the substantial antiwar faction of the Democratic
party, while Ron Paul has inspired a supportive banner even at an
anarchist rally full of hippies and punks, urging people to join
the Ron Paul "love revolution."
This just has a boatload of assumptions that aren't based on any
emprical evidence. I don't think it's right to assume that he would
get most conservative voters. Those of us who consider national
security the most important issue and oppose his neo-isolationism
would actually be put in the odd position of being closer to
Hillary on foreign policy. Also, I'm not so sure that he'd get "a
huge share of the bourgeoning antiwar vote." A banner at "an
anarchist rally full of hippies and punks" seems like a rather
slender to lean on, evidence-wise.
And how much of a constituency is there for this?
And think of the undeserved riches that would then
be ours: Paul is an across-the-board libertarian on economic
issues. He wants to abolish most Cabinet agencies (aside from
State, Justice, and a radically whittled-down Defense). He has
tried (unsuccessfully) to return the U.S. to the gold standard and
has made clear his desire to dismantle the IRS immediately.
I applaud the enthusiasm of Paul supporters, but they should try
not to lose their grip on reality.