Okay, so you weren’t tongue-in-cheek trying to illustrate the foolishness of conspiracy-paranoia by suggesting a Manchurian-candidate conspiracy explanation for Ron Paul. But just the same, even if you did not intend to, your second explanation for Ron Paul does ironically illustrate how silly conspiracy theories are.
Except, of course, when a deep-cover decades-long conspiracy has been underway. But then, how would anyone ever know? Truely devilishly clever conspiracies are by definition undetectable.
How’s about just sticking with your option no. 1—Ron Paul is the kook, well, sort of a kook, who brings out astonishing levels of kookiness in his followers? (Not all leaders of kooks are themselves as kooky as their followers.)
Guilt by association? It’s not a fair attack. Few people would argue that our political system is under attack. Consider the evils of the Clinton presidency. That alone should give us pause. Some people are angry and upset about the loss of representation in our government. They lash out in inappropriate ways. That doesn’t mean that the problem doesn’t exist. It does. Ron Paul discusses it in detail, and that’s what attracts some of these people to him. It’s not his fault that he’s speaking the truth even if they aren’t.
“How’s about just sticking with your option no. 1”
As I said, the second possibility is entertaining. You admit it is not entirely impossible.