So, why not Ron Paul for the Republicans? I’ll fully admit that I have not followed the GOP nomination process because I’m not all that interested. My vote for President is almost certainly going to a Democrat in 2008 – for the simple reason that the Bush administration has made such a colossal mess that it’s going to take someone from a different party to clean out the stables, even a little bit.
That disclosure notwithstanding, why isn’t Ron Paul regarded as a top tier candidate? It’s purely anecdotal, but I’ve seen more Ron Paul sites in my neck of the woods than any other Presidential candidates. (Which means, maybe 5 – just not a lot of them up at this point.) From what I’ve read, he’s pretty much a paleo-conservative. He’s a small government kind of guy except when it comes to abortion. He’s anti-immigration, anti-war, and apparently pretty popular on the Internet.
Maybe he’s akin to a Howard Dean of the right – speaking truths that are inconvenient to the Republican establishment. I don’t really see what the Republican front-runners have to offer that Paul doesn’t. Giuliani seems a bit on the fascist side for my tastes (and presumably for anyone who favors limited government) and has all of those inconvenient personal difficulties for someone who wants to take up the mantle of the Family Values Party. Fred Thompson is coming out of the gates looking like he’s asleep at the switch. Mitt Romney has his finger firmly planted in the wind to see which way it’s blowing, and for the Religious Right, I have to think the Mormon thing doesn’t sit especially well.
I don’t know, maybe those who are better informed on the Republican Presidency can provide better information about the dynamics at play here.