The Spoiler

Andrew's right: As the Libertarian Party's nominee for President, Ron Paul would be as formidable as any fringe-ish third party candidate could hope to be; depending on the general election matchup, he might be able to match Ralph Nader's 2000 influence, or even slightly exceed it. If Giuliani's the GOP nominee, Paul can woo the hard-core civil libertarians, the hard-core anti-immigration types, and the hard-core pro-lifers; if Hillary's the Democratic nominee, he can pick up some Nader voters who think she's insufficiently anti-war. As Chris Caldwell's profile makes clear, the Paul candidacy attracts more than its share of kooks and nutters, but that's no bar to him getting lots of media attention and enough votes to shake things up a bit.

Yes, he's said he won't leave the GOP, but he ran for president on the Libertarian ticket once before, so his party loyalty can't be all that strong. And as long as the internet fundraising keeps rolling in, you know an awful lot of people will be telling him to do it.

Comments

I read Caldwell's piece hoping that he, or Paul, would square his alleged libertarianism with his anti-choice, closed-borders views. Which is to say, Paul's not a libertarian at all but rather a particular kind of paleocon, so I'd wonder if the libertarians would have him.

Posted by david mizner | July 24, 2007 12:47 PM

Yes, I'm not sure if the Libertarian Party considers Paul libertarian enough, but it's almost certain that the Constitution Party will nominate him.

Posted by John Savage | July 24, 2007 3:15 PM

If Giuliani's the GOP nominee, Paul can woo the hard-core civil libertarians, the hard-core anti-immigration types, and the hard-core pro-lifers;

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how on earth could Ron Paul win over "hard-core pro-lifers"?

Posted by WillieStyle | July 24, 2007 3:32 PM

Willie: the answer to your question is that he IS one.

Posted by John | July 24, 2007 3:33 PM

I think Caldwell actually does a good job of describing Paul as a strange mix of libertarian and traditionalist conservative. As to the abortion thing, his article provides an anecdote from Paul's earlier life where he witnessed a late term abortion, and was obviously quite disturbed. I don't think paleocon is really the right term for him. Paleocons place much more emphasis on this sort of white-washed idea of the conservative working class.

Posted by Steven White | July 24, 2007 7:39 PM

I am a RP supporter. I am only a whacko if the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are whacko. I support RP because he is the only one running who stands on principle.

I invite you all to educate yourselfs about Dr.Paul's stand on the issues by visiting his web site at https://www.ronpaul2008.com. You might just find that he is right about a lot of things.

I am sick of voting for the lesser evil between two almost identical parties. I want to vote for a good.

Posted by faustina | July 25, 2007 4:14 PM

Ron Paul has the overwhelming support of LP members. The question is whether, if he wasn't a willing participant, the bylaws would be changed in convention to nominate him.

Recent survey data and arguments here.

Posted by Stephen Gordon | July 25, 2007 5:19 PM