So here’s the BIG THINK version of my below.
Pete went further than I did the debate portion of the campaign somewhat of a freak show. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
He’s also right that it would be right for candidates to call Paul out on his actual policy views—the ones that sound radical in the good sense but aren’t really. I only see that happening if he wins more than one primary or caucus. The candidate man or woman to do that, probably against his or her interests, should of course consult with Pete.
It’s also true that there’s no going back to the old convention system. The infrastructure that made it possible has disappeared.
The Paul problem is really complicated. One aspect: In the thread below he’s called the Catholic candidate. But there are candidates that are actually Catholic—Gingrich and Santorum (the latter has taken hits, after all, for the fidelity to Catholic moral teaching). Catholic traditionalists support Paul because he’s against allegedly imperial America. This isn’t a tiny part of the voting population, but it’s one little faction among many that Republicans need to recover to regain the White House.
The general anger directed against the Bush decade—debt, war, and torture, so they say—is understandable, at least. Paul is basically a protest candidate, like McGovern. So the fact that he’s not a plausible president—and that some of his views are wacky—is of little interest to his supporters.
McGovern, his critics said, was all about acid, amnesty, and abortion. Paul, in a way, plays into the Sixties libertarian, peacenik sentiments of the first two, while being sincerely pro-life. That’s an attractive combination to a very small number of voters, but enough to make a difference.
The very day Paul announces he’s running third-party, the election is probably over.
