A great column that asks all of the right questions the MSM and too many of the Paul-haters on the right don’t ask.   Again, why can’t the other candidates generate even 1/10th the amount of enthusiasm that Paul does?  What does this say about the legacy of Bush conservatism?  What does it mean when Ron Paul, opposed tooth and nail by all of the Republican establishment money, marginalized by everyone as a candidate who can’t win, gets this enthusiasm?  What does it mean for the future of the Republican party that of our already shrinking percentage of the youth vote overall, what we do have is dominated by Paul. What does it mean that the only reason Paul didn’t win Iowa is that the Geritol crowd– the last folks listening to the MSM, delivered it for Romney? What does it mean that a candidate with so many obvious flaws can *still* deliver that much enthusiasm and support.

Blaming Paul or attacking him and his partisans isn’t going to answer these fundamental questions about the present and future of the Republican party.  It will take some hard introspection about the past failures and future direction of the conservative movement– something that too many Beltway Republicans and too many conservative bloggers seem loath to undertake.

My question is why are all these youth voters voting for a man who is statistically likely to die on them in the middle of his first term.  I for one don’t look forward to VP Norman Rockwell taking office.

Yeah, but come on, she works hard for the money…

http://tinyurl.com/78oqy3v 

Why aren’t conservative Christians showing up at Santorum’s campaign headquarters in such overwhelming numbers that the campaign staff is shocked by the influx of volunteers? 

Because they have jobs.

Good post RSM.

We should not reject everything Ron Paul is saying.  Is smaller government bad?  Is less spending bad?  Are civil liberties bad (that the GOP allows Dems to lie about this and claim they are the pro civil liberty party is insane! Idaho EPA supreme court case  Last time I checked due process, freedom, and property rights are part of civil liberties ).   Are less foreign entanglements necessarily bad?   Ron Paul is extreme in his non-intervention policy, but that does not mean we can’t take from it what is good.  Sarah Palin thinks so too. Sarah Palin on making peace with Paul

Which one paints the Nazis? *g*

This comes very close to not totally missing the point, yet it fails. Yes, you’re absolutely right that Paul does have the support of some fringey types including Raw milk supporters, drug-legalizers, etc. but that doesn’t explain his level of support, any more than lame attempts to tie him to Neo-Nazis will. A lot of unpopular groups, some of whom we like and some of whom we don’t will benefit from a pro-liberty agenda.  But while that may drive their support of Paul it doesn’t mean that their agenda is Paul’s agenda.  And more importantly it doesn’t explain why no other candidate, if its just about mouthing the correct words, is able to get anywhere near the enthusiasm that Paul does. 

Its because the other candidates simply drip with insincerity, and Paul doesn’t.  Its because they talk the small government words, but vote for big government time and again.  I can justify supporting many on tactical grounds but none of them have shown the sort of conservative courage that we need.

Paul has his flaws– I would love to have a conservative candidate without those flaws– but he also has strengths that none of the other candidates can match. 

Excellent post!

Paul’s supporters are objectively *by far* the most demographically diverse of any Republican candidate.  And while the fact that Paul has supporters on the fringe right is undeniable, pointing to a publication that ceased printing a decade ago and hadn’t had more than 90,000 subscribers for a decade before that seems implausible to say the least, in explaining the support of 20, 30 and 40somethings today.

If Paul’s campaign were really being driven by such donors, we’d expect to see him performing best among a crowd of bitter old racists in the 70 and up category.  Yet we see the exact opposite.  He does his best among younger voters– and not just kids but 30 and 40soemthings.

Your theory of Paul’s support doesn’t fit the observed facts. The important thing for the Republican is not about who might have supported a Paul campaign two or three decades ago, but why he is drawing so much support now.  All of this stuff about the Spotlight, etc. is an attempt to avoid the real question– because the establishment doesn’t want to hear the answer.

That is EXACTLY it…imho of course.  If only more people would consider this.

…and I would also say that people need to pay attention to social conservatism ala Santorum, and to some extent Paul — they both overlap in some areas; people are not so much intolerant but tired of being the victims of intolerance for desiring some of the more traditional moral values; moral values I might suggest that are completely necessary to the running of this republic and any form of civil society that isn’t bankrupt, and yes, even in the economic sense.  These may not be exactly like the traditional values of old, but they are probably suprisingly close; it’s foolish to ignore this as well.

We have seen the same enthusiasm before: for Sarah Palin.

That you consider so many things constitutional that clearly are not at all constitutional is an actually an indictment of the public schools of your era, not ours.I am 22 years old, a Papist, educated in the Catholic school system my entire life, have a high-paying job in software at a globally-known company, and I support Ron Paul.  Why?

Because I’ve read the Federalist Papers, I’ve read the Constitution, I’ve read Marbury v. Madison, and I’ve read Abraham Lincoln.  After that indoctrination, I really didn’t have any choice.

I’m proud to see that you are coming around and supporting the ONLY true conservative in the race, Ron Paul. However, it bothers me when I read that Santorum, in your estimation, is “a close but definite runner-up.” I hope that, before long, you and the majority of Republicans will come to realize that Mr. Santorum and his twin, Mr. Romney, are as far from true conservatisim as one can possibly be without outright switching affiliations.
  If the Republican base wants more of the same old  failed policies of the past, then by all means, vote for the boobsie twins, they are sure to give you more than enough big government, statist fascisim to go around, and then we can watch our Country implode while what’s left of our precious rights go slithering down the drain with the help of big government policies such as the “Patriot Act”.

“And I fear that the answer would be, selfishness.”

Yes, this evening shows that USA lacks moral courage sufficient to defeat the Liar. Romney cannot do it because he is not a Christian. Only a Christian can defeat the Liar. And one with moral courage.

USA has not yet learned the lesson, that the system is broken. More breaking is required to drive the lesson home. Prepare for four years of “ludicrous speed” statism/absolutism in USA and continuous effort to increase the number of years indefinitely by any means that appeal.

Meanwhile, there is no “going back” or “retaking our country.” Instead, reconceptualize, reform suddenly and relentlessly and reestablish eternal verities/USA values in modern guise.

From lots of online discussion with Ronulans, I can only conclude that a significant chunk of his supporters would have been Obama voters in 2008 if they were exactly the same age at that time.

I think Paul attracts a TON of disenfranchised Dems.  People who wanted that hope and change and nationalized healthcare until they got a chance to see what it actually looks like.  People who wanted an effective politician, but are shocked at the Chicagoland assault on human decency.  People who wanted someone to hit back against Wall Street shenanegans, but are fed up with The Big Lie that’s floated daily instead.

The other side of the “should we take the Ron Paul phenomenon seriously” question is “why do we persist in putting squishy moderates ahead of doctrinaire Conservatives?”  Especially since it’s obvious that genuine conservatives are what more people are looking for.

And we need genuine Conservatives that don’t have shady pasts, or problems speaking in public.  But sadly, too many Republicans still couldn’t take Palin or any other Conservative seriously, so they began shoving Mitt down our throats, or at least enabling those who are doing it.

So RedState, PowerLine, HotAir, Krauthammer Review Online, and other Palin-hating web pundits, thanks for being so bloody-minded “Conservative” that all the actual Conservatives were chased away, and we are left with Mitt and Crazy Uncle Ron.

Very simple, we don’t see Ron Paul  as having “so many obvious flaws”.   He is the only true conservative in the race.  

Because it still takes a month or two to sail the Atlantic and a single ship can’t carry enough gunpowder (nuclear weapons were never invented in Paultard world) to blow up a city….

George Washington lived in the real world and would have modified his foreign policy to suit.

I can’t imagine why anyone covering politics for a living would call Ron Paul’s appeal a mystery. He’s the only candidate not financed by the banks that are ruining the global economy. He’s the only candidate that wants to eliminate the infringement on our personal liberties – both regulatory and criminal. He also the only candidate that seems to have a clue that solid economics is the base upon which we build our social infrastructure. If the economy is failing, we care little about anything else.

Since Romney and the Not Romneys are all part of the model that has failed us for almost three decades as RINOs and over 100 years as Keynesians, why would we support any of them?

Let’s remember that our current Keynesian (AKA failed) economic system was built by bankers for bankers over 100 years ago. Romney and the Not Romneys all like that model – as do their banker financiers. Just ask yourself – is per capita crime lower than it was 100 years ago? Is purchasing power better than it was 100 years ago? Is our nation more loved and safer than it was 100 years ago? Since the answer to all of those is “no,” the only rational choice is Paul.

Nice find, edge! It’s hilarious that so many of them claim Paul “is the only true conservative.”

It would be as idiotic as a group of white, redneck, high-schoolers from west of Howell, “joining” an AME church in Detroit to “teach them how to play gospel music right.”

It never ceases to amaze me the number of self-styled conservatives who are content (if not supportive) of the unelected central-planning bureaucracy known as the Federal Reserve.

When it comes to socialism, ObamaCare is child’s play when compared to the Federal Reserve – an institution straight out of Marx’s 10 planks!