Over at Lew Rockwell Blog, James Ostrowski makes the case for why Ron Paul Can win:
I said “can.” It’s too soon to say “will.”
First, because all the major candidates are deeply flawed.
Second, there are no good Republican candidates other than Ron Paul.
Third, he would be running against Hillary, which means he starts with an automatic 45 percent of the vote. You only need 49 as Bill taught us.
Fourth, he picks up those extra four points by outflanking Hillary on the war and on other issues that appeal to the left (drug war, financial populism, etc.).
Fifth, the internet will play its biggest role ever in a national election and Ron is strong on the web.
Sixth, any joint appearance will reveal a man of substance versus a number of shallow sloganeers. (I think Obama would be the only other candidate who would even understand what Ron is saying, not because he is obtuse but because he’s not!)
Sixth, contrary to what Rothbard called the Whig theory of history, things aren’t always steadily improving. Sometimes, often, history regresses sharply, and then suddenly rebounds to a sane state of affairs. We’ve been on this imperial, welfare-warfare, corporate state road now for 110 years. It’s time for a very sharp correction.
Okay, I thought of two more.
Seventh, he will be the only libertarian in a crowded field in New Hampshire, the most libertarian state in the Northeast.
Eighth, many of the coastal pundits who will dismiss him are out of touch with the heartland. Even in Buffalo, a capital of big government liberalism, Ron will have lots of support. It’s the site of an ongoing, libertarian-inpired tax revolt.
In my opinion number six is the best reason: Sixth, any joint appearance will reveal a man of substance versus a number of shallow sloganeers.
People are tired of having every word that comes out of our politicians’ mouths sound like it went through a focus group. Ron Paul’s sincerity and well-defined values give him an edge over every other candidate.