One of the more exasperating forms of email I get is the outraged rant from Ron Paul supporters who furiously take issue with my plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face observation that Ron Paul cannot win the presidency, never mind the Republican nomination (pretty much a prerequisite for victory in the general election). I would very much like to live in a country where a Ron Paul — though perhaps not this Ron Paul — had a much better chance of winning the presidency or the nomination. But they don’t. I point out to some of these readers that, for example, you’re not going to get a majority of Americans to vote for a candidate who wants to abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Not. Going. To. Happen. Would that it were otherwise.
A few of these Paulistas respond with some mumbo-jumbo or insults about Israel and ignore my point entirely. But others simply deny that there isn’t a constituency for radical libertarianism. They say the media blocks his message but thanks to YouTube and the internet we — i.e. me and other mainstream media gatekeepers — can’t keep the truth secret any longer. Seriously.
Well, as pointless as this is, it still seems vaguely worthwhile to note out that Huckabee is much, much more popular than Ron Paul. And he got there with less money and, until recently, arguably less media exposure. A party, never mind a country, that can get excited about a Huckabee cannot, almost by definition, choose to elect a Ron Paul. Again, I wish it were otherwise. But it ain’t.