Ron Paul: The GOP's 2008 version of 2004 Howard Dean?

Ron Paul's campaign for the 2008 presidency has flown, for the most part, under the radar. I say this because when you look at his polling numbers, they are still in the single digits nationally. However, Paul has rung up some impressive numbers as of late in campaign funds and my colleague likes to tell us that this may be a telling sign that change is at hand. Then again, maybe it's Howard Dean 2004 all over again. What I mean by that is just because you raise a lot of money doesn't mean you're going to win over the electorate.

Paul recently spoke in Chicago to a pack filled ballroom at the Hyatt Regency. This blogger, if you will, was there to witness what all the hoopla was all about. Of course, this blogger is from the so called "independent" 'Real Clear Politics' website. While I'm sure this source will be accused of being some republican driven marketing machine, Paul is running as a Republican, after all (though to me and the rest of the world, in name only). When the question comes up in my mind, why doesn't someone like Paul stand a chance in 2008?, I simply will refer to these bloggers observations at this event as some of the reasons why:

A man in an "Investigate 9/11" black t-shirt was walking up and down the aisles handing out fake dollar bills with Dick Cheney's face where Washington's should have been. In the corner of the bill, instead of a dollar amount, it read "9-11." Above the picture, where it should have read United States of America, it read "Unmask State Sponsored Terrorism."

Now, I know Ron Paul doesn't subscribe to the theory, per se, that 9/11 was a cooked up grand conspiracy by the evil Bush and his Darth Vader side kick Cheney, he still grants the "Truthers" his time which to me lends creedence to their validation. I don't think that sits too well with, oh I don't know, maybe 80-90% of the country? But that's just me.

Then there's this:

Of course in this style of ad-lib stump speech, there is a dangerous chance for rhetorical mistakes. Rookies in their first presidential primary can sink their candidacies with one ill-chosen phrase. But Paul, who barely registers in the polls, is pleasantly free of speaking carefully. His proposals come full-throated and without qualifications:

What do we replace the 16th Amendment with? "Nothing!"

What do we replace the "unconstitutional" Federal Reserve with? "The gold standard!"

But as appealing as several of these policy prescriptions might be for some conservatives, such as leaving the United Nations for good, Paul always manages to go too far.

For instance, the prescription drug companies, he says, "are no better than the military industrial complex," which is one of the far left's most cherished phrases.

Another example: "A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways," a comment guaranteeing political oblivion for anyone serious about reaching the White House.

These statements are just part of the reason most Republicans will keep a safe distance from Paul's candidacy. The shame of it is that there are probably a lot of Republicans who share Paul's "minding-our-own-business" flavor of foreign policy and economic libertarianism. It's just that so much of it comes off as something Noam Chomsky might have written 30 years ago.

And continuing with:

The other part of Paul's candidacy hurting its appeal with the larger electorate is that it's a circus of ideologues each with their own pet causes. Paul deftly satisfies the factions individually with his peculiar politics, but what this amounts to is a grab-bag of radical policy proposals. Some might say that this is libertarianism or "true Republicanism," but the fact is that it leads to a chaotic campaign, whose only guiding light is some mythical American past where an unsullied constitutional order reigned.

To me, all these things stand as reasons Paul doesn't stand a chance next year. While some of his ideas are novel and "out of the box" so to speak, some are just too far fetched in the world in which we find ourselves today.

Yes, Ron Paul would make a great president.........in 1910.