From a conversation I've referenced previously in earlier posts (see here, here, and here), Former Mitt Romney aide and now Mike Huckabee supporter Hunter Golden ripped into Ron Paul recently in a manner that I'm surprised nobody else has done. This was in response to someone calling Paul the "only conservative in the field".
I'm fine if you want to vote for him, but really, the guy's as electable as my keyboard is in the end. We can debate what a pure conservative is and isn't until the cat comes home, but it doesn't mean a lick in the end. Right now he's sitting on about 13% of the Republican vote which makes up less than 5% nationally. Hardly electable. Sure, I'm sure the always cynical independents will like him, but they've got brains and would rather support a winner in the end. Really, it's all moot.
He's sat around in Congress doing a whole lot of nothing for 20 years except tell us what he 'believes in' for 20 some odd years yes hasn't passed much in the way of anything important. He likes to play the 'conscience' of the congress thing, but really it doesn't fly when you don't vote on much of....well....anything. The guy won't even vote to condemn genocide because it conflicts with what his view of the U.S.'s role in the world should be. The last thing this country needs is a "take my ball home when I don't get my way" legislator racking his brain for four years trying to figure out how to do the same as an executive. Our current President's most admirable quality and glaring fault is his unwavering commitment to his ideals. It makes for great men, but not great government.
Paul's problem isn't his conservatism, it's presence or lack thereof. It's the fact that he's 1) got nothing to run on; 2.) as a result, is based on what everyone isn't doing. If he were President he would, uh, not do what everyone else would do. Great.
Golden makes a lot of sense, here. While Paul is running on a libertarian platform, a lot of his message is comparing his libertarian principles to other candidates, instead of simply presenting these principles.
You would think that if he felt these principles were right for America, he would've pushed them harder during his tenure in Congress...maybe introducing some libertarian-based legislation, or something. Instead, he simply votes "no" on most issues or abstains altogether.
As I've said previously, I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for. However, I think most people have a problem with the messenger more than the message.