[publiusF27]

There is an understandable backlash against Paul because of his desire to lose in Iraq (or more tactfully, to take actions that would result in a loss in Iraq).

Yeah, I don't agree with Paul on Iraq, but I have a feeling that if he did somehow win the election, political realities would intervene. You can't just order hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and a hundred other countries to come home tomorrow. It's a process, and stuff happens along the way. On the other hand, we can't afford to guarantee the security of S. Korea and Taiwan and Europe and Israel and Japan forever.

I disagree that another splinter party is a solution

Not in 2008, but Paul has energized quite a few college students and exposed them to ideas that might not otherwise gain much exposure, let alone acceptance, on a campus. Those people, and the voting blocs you identified are not going to go away, and will ultimately find representation. You're not a Whig are you? ;-) It can happen.

[No.6]

My hope is that some other bright real conservative will incorporate the best ideas in Paul’s campaign and back them up. This is a key election and I’d rather not see “Hillary!” implementing socialism in 2009.

I don’t care whether the winning party calls itself ‘GOP’ or ‘Libertarian’ or ‘Constitution Party’ as long as it achieves conservative/libertarian ends. However the odds are pretty good that either the GOP nominee or the Dem nominee will win :)

In short I’d rather the GOP become more libertarian than the conservative movement splinter and lose 5 elections in a row trying to sort out what name it ought to call itself.