I like the tone af the article and can respect the author’s uncomfortableness with the concerns he raises.
It sounds to me like the author is concerned that unless those supporting Paul are in 100%, or even75%-90% agreement, with him on the issues than his candidacy should be suspect.
I don’t think that is a criticism that should hold any water. What candidate could pass that kind of test?
I am convinced that if Paul were elected President he would govern according to the same ideals he has held all throughout his career of public service. If the Lefties want to support Paul because of his stand on the war then good for them. They’ll also be helping to elect a man that will be against everything else they desire in a government.
I don’t have a problem with that.
Racists want to support Paul? Liberals want to support Paul? CTers want to support Paul?
Good, let them because in supporting Paul they are unwittingly supporting the candidate who will do the most to promote policies antithetical to them.
Claiming RP is aligned with every organization that finds something in his message to their liking isn't any more valid than holding up Rick Warren, et al as proof that evangelicals are Hillary's core constituency.
The way I see it, Paul’s best real shot to guide the country in the right direction is to be picked by one of the more mainstream candidates as a running mate.
His value in that role is going to be seriously impacted by whether his support is seen as real and durable, and right now it doesn’t look like he’d draw any real votes from outside the normal GOP base in a general election.
Dave