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:
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?
I applaud the enthusiasm of Paul supporters, but they should try not to lose their grip on reality.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.