Ron Paul in 2012

Let’s be clear:  Ron Paul does not have a snowballs chance in hell of possibly being elected President in 2012.  But he could play a major role in the election, and here’s why:
He’s popular.  He’s a true libertarian, small-government Republican(ish), and he named one of his kids Rand for Christ’s sake.  He’s still against the U.S. coming off the Gold Standard.  He thinks Ronald Reagan was too liberal.  The man is bon-a-fide small government.  He wants to shut down the fed, he’s a protectionist, and he’s consistent.  He makes a promise, and chances are, he keeps it.  He was against the Iraq War, he’s neutral in the Israel-Palestine conflict, he’s anti-embargo and anti-intervention, to the point where he’s against intervention even in Sudan.  He’s honest, and he has a lot of appeal to the true free-traders (he thinks NAFTA is too protectionist) than any of the Republicans.  He’s a proponent of State’s rights, and is probably the only person in congress who could still be defined by the 18th Century standards of “anti-federalist.”
And there’s the point.  Paul could draw a lot of votes away from the Republican Party, especially with a nominee like Huckabee or Palin.  He’s more of a Reagan Republican than Reagan himself was, and Ayn Rand fans can’t help but drool over his libertarian credentials.  Though he’s pro-life, he’s also pro-gay marriage and for stem cell reseach, and his appeal to the Religious Right really wouldn’t be substantial when compared to what Palin and Huckabee will get, and without pulling at least SOME of that bloc, he couldn’t possibly win.  And he’ll be 77 in 2012, which is 5 years older than McCain in ‘08, who was “too old” in a lot of voters eyes.  He will not be a Republican nominee, and he likely won’t even be a Republican contender.
The danger of Ron Paul comes when he decides to run against the Republican Party as a libertarian.  He could have a Ross Perot effect in pulling voters away from the Republicans and clearing the way for a second Obama term, and in doing so, he would deepen the fissure between Religious Right and Reagan Right, or possibly influence the redefining of the post-Bush Republican doctrine.  Should the party ever split – which still strikes me as unlikely, due to the current upsurge in anti-Obama support – Paul would be a major leader on the Reagan side.  He’s one of the few truly honest people in politics, regardless of what you think of his beliefs, and though that doesn’t win you an election, it sure as hell gets you votes.