Good point Travis.  To say it another way, if Paul has such a tiny group of "lunatic fringe" supporters, why should it matter? By the way, it takes a lot of "lunatics" to put a book on the NY times best seller list.  Either there are a lot more luntics in America, or a lot of regular honest hard working folks.  I tend to not give credence to theory that most of Paul’s supporters are lunatics, so I think that the simplest answer is probably the correct one, that mostly honest hard-working people actually are lending credence to some of Paul’s ideas, or at least taking him a little more seriously.

My vote goes where the real chance for change lays, for my son, for all our children.  And I won’t compromise that on some middle of the road canidate, particulary one supporting neo Republican agendas.  Things have gone to far for that now. 

If your so concerned the democrats will win because Paul enjoys enough support to tip the scales, perhaps the GOP should have nominated Paul in the first place eh?  I know this, McCain’s nomination makes no sense at all considering his performance early during the primary process.  Going from dead in the water to golden child in a record upset, despite being the closest to Bush’s policys out of all runners. 

That leaves two possibilites, one that the GOP has changed  drastically during the life of my grandfather and now I were members.  No longer like the party that Regan represent.  So much that they actually believe in this unconstituional nonsense.  Willing to trade away dwindling freedoms for protection for the boogeyman, and watch our country fold in on itself.  The other, well something must be rotten at the core, evidence is there, but not enough to say for certain.  Afterall, polictics were always rotten, nautre of the beast. 

Don’t get me wrong, I respect McCain, his record, his chivaraly at most times.  Despite a few moments that would have embaressed a schoolyard bullie, let alone the man that hopes to lead our country.  However his views about critical matters are diamatrically opposed to my own.  And his knowledge of economics, well so far he seems to have no understanding about that field at all.  Not a good thing, considering the current dollar crisis. 

The war itself, I have no interest in chasing Obama to the gates of hell.  Even if I did, he obviously isn’t in Iraq.  Nor do I want our growing generation to face the risk of a draft to keep chasing some obscure political goal, disguised in politcal rheteoric.  Even one packaged as being some important salvation to our people.  Which it is not, this war was unjustified.  It wastes lives, it wastes resources, it damages our potical position in the globe.  Distracting from real threats, antagonizing them while we screw around over a bunch of sand. 

Let us also not forget that this war, the full overarching war against terrorism has been used as a smoke screen.  Pushing ahead agendas that during the founders time would have been considered to border upon treason.  Violations of both the constitution, and the Geneva convention, forcing us into an isolationist stance amongst the world community. 

The fact that McCain, a Vietnam vet would so aggresivly support continuing this course baffles me.  Almost as much as his miracalous turnaround in the delegate process.  So no, I won’t change my vote over.  And if McCain looses, don’t come blaming me.  The GOP shouldn’t have picked such a man to represent them if they wanted my party vote.  Even then pretty sure there was more than two people on the stage at the Regan library when this thing kicked off. 

Almost everyone of them had some redeming quality, excpet Guiliani.  And well then there was Fred, he never seemed seriously running.  Don’t even think the man took it serious himself, just parroted Paul and tried to look dapper.  Point is McCain’s loss (which is likely) isn’t because Paul supporters are sticking to our guns.  It’s because the party backed someone that the people didn’t.  Keep it up and in another twenty years the Republican party may find itself swapping places with the Libertarians. 

Travis –~

Paul, when you complain about "30 years of pulling the line for the party" not getting you everything od your wildest dreams and a pony, you remind me of a recent exchange between Rim Russert and Justice Scalia. Scalia’s dissents can be strong medicine, notes Russert. Sure, admits Scalia; but, look: you "don‘t know what‘s on the cutting room floor, Tim. … You don‘t know what majority opinions have never seen the light of day … [b]ecause [of], you know, a fairly harsh dissent that pointed out the absurdity. It sometimes works. It doesn‘t always." Similarly, in totting up what good you have gotten and finding it wanting, what you are failing to account for is what evil (and merely bad policy) has been prevented from coming into being because the people who would have perpetrated it couldn’t muster the votes. You have to take into account that as bad as Bush has been - and I think that in many ways he has been just awful - the alternative is to appalling to contemplate. Medicare Part D is a horrendous mistaken, to be sure - but better that than federalized universal healthcare!

Simon, your whole argument seems to be that from a libertarian or smaller government standpoint, the Republican Party–whatever is faults–is the lesser of two evils.  That may very well be true on a number of economic policies, but it I think more than a few libertarians would disagree that the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils when it comes to civil liberties and foreign policy.

Obama may very well be a left-wing economic populist, thus making McCain the lesser of two evils (from a libertarian or smaller government standpoint).  But on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, Obama would be the lesser of two evils (again, from a libertarian or smaller government standpoint.

Given your defense of the Republican Party in general and the Iraq War in particular, I have to wonder what your definition of "smaller government" is.  Is it simply a matter of who wants lower taxes and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court?  Or is it about cutting spending and reducing government power across the board–including fiscal policy, social policy, and foreign policy?

"It is a very rare election - and I mean truly rare, once in a generation or two - that a candidate worth voting for comes forward. (Indeed, I can think of only one in my lifetime.)"

In my estimation, Ron Paul is such a candidate. He’s certainly the most worthwhile candidate I’ve had the opportunity to vote for in the last 30 years. So I’ll continue to support him. The race for the Republican nominee is not over until the delegates vote in September. Until then, I’ll support my candidate – and vote for him in St. Paul should I get the chance. If he does not obtain the nomination, then I’ll likely support Senator McCain as a very distant second choice using similar logic to your own (the alternative being a socialist frenzy brought on by three branches of government untied to kill America with Robin Hood glee). You are, of course, free to abandon Senator McCain and lend your support to Congressman Paul. We’d be happy to accept that support but, of course, that’s as unlikely to happen as me supporting Senator McCain at this point. After the nominations for each party are truly established at the conventions, I’ll vote for the most conservative option. If that’s Senator McCain, then he’ll have my support (though with far less enthusiasm than Congressman Paul enjoys from me now).