Glenn, thanks for your article. I believe you have captured many reasons for his appeal.

I think one of the primary reasons is his break with the recent past on the issue of federalism; his opposition to centralization of power. Some here get it; others think he will obliterate institutions they are comfortable with and that they think are crucial to a civilized society. Not so.

With federalism, and respect for the 10th Amendment, those institutions will still exist. However they will be located at the state level. There will be many states that look very liberal, and there will be other states that look conservative (and I mean real diversity, not the minor flavors we have now). There will be a place to live for everyone, and we will have less of this frantic imposing of our will on each other through the federal government that we see now.

As to reluctance at seeing Ron Paul interpret the Constitution, this has it backward. Bush is rejecting the Constitution entirely. We want the opposite; we want Congress and the President thinking constitutionally again. And there is a mistake thinking this would be dangerous. Just because an already-corrupt Supreme Court has found a power for the federal government in it that just ain't there, does not mean Ron Paul has to act as if that's so, and take and use that power (he's said over and over he does not want to run your life, and means it). The document is one that limits power of the federal government. Both the President and Congress have a duty to limit their power grabs even if the Supreme Court says they can grab it. We should be fearing people like Bush, who don't feel limited by the Constitution.

Maybe some of the evident distress around here is that it's Ron Paul who is getting traction, not Kucinich. Why is that? Why don't you guys start pushing Kucinich like Ron Paul supporters are doing?

For whatever reason, Kucinich is going nowhere. I'm actually sorry this is so; I'd rather have a choice between two anti-war candidates, like Kucinich vs Paul in the general election (now that would be a race worth watching, with no retching needed).

Another thread here is that some at least don't think Paul would be a disaster like Bush has been. No need to worry about being tortured for example! And with President Paul being a strict constitutionalist, states could go their own way, with many of them obviously going in a very liberal/left/progressive/whatever direction.

But for others here, that is not good enough, because it implies other states could go in a conservative or libertarian direction. That's just not to be allowed.

The authoritarian urge apparently does not exist only in neocons.

Well then, check this out:

http://tinyurl.com/2sjmrn

As Tex MacRae put it, "Of Ron Paul's donors, the top three listed employers are Google, the Army and the Navy. Compare them to the media-anointed front runners of both parties, whose top donor lists read like a Who's Who of the housing bubble and credit implosion ponzi-schemers behind the destruction of the US economy. Too bad the Old Media was too busy sniffing the FEC reports for wizards, clowns, strippers and Nazis to point this out."

Ron Paul's big donors are military folks stuck in a pointless war, and internet corporations (that know he will not regulate them).

...with the notion that there are people out there who actually like him. Maybe it is mindless, and they don't really know him.

No matter. His own firemen are "swift-boating" him, so he's not long for the world. The R nominee will be either the blow-dried Romney, or Ron Paul. I don't care how much money Giuliani has.