I’m not particularly fond of either Paul - and less fond of their mind numbed drone-bots. But frankly, I have a far deeper concern that my words stand the test of time and logic than any affection - or disaffection - for any particular person. Great minds focus on ideas, small minds on personalities. I could really care less about personalities.
Other candidates don’t worry about assembling straw poll voters because they really don’t mean much of anything. Again, if the CPAC straw poll meant a thing, we’d have a Paul in the White House. Tell me again, when did that happen?
Does not follow. The straw poll can be significant of a thing without picking the overall winner.
I think what it signifies is that there is a pretty big contingent of people out there in our country who are interested in returning conservatism to first principles... who are emphatically not interested in a party that amounts to "less liberal than the liberals." These people actively desire smaller government, greater federalism, more local control, more recognition and respect for constitutional liberties, lower taxes, and a less interventionist foreign policy. They believe that these things are consistent with the founders' vision for what our country should be, and that this vision proceeds from the inalienable, God-given rights that we all share.
The Republican establishment doesn't like Paul, but in rejecting all things Paul it throws a baby out with the bathwater. The Republican "Paul problem" would disappear in a New York minute if the party would just do one thing: demonstrate the slightest inclination to materially pursue the party platform. For years the party has paid only lip service to the platform, if it considers it at all.