The Politico has a poll up that asks what will happen with the Ron Paul supporters. Not too many responses yet, but the trend is undeniable.

I have to admit that I was one of the 82%.

After all, if McCain can’t get mainstream conservatives to support him, what hope does he have of gaining the support of Libertarians?

Personally, I’m starting to take a hard look at Bob Barr.

As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.

But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?

Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?

Where was I when Reaganism died?

With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning — think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?

Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.

I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.

I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain’s "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain’s poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.

I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I’m getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don’t like much of it.

I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won’t vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).

And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That’s right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.

On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards’ and Hillary’s speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I’m joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can’t find a militia then I’m going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.

Obama’s speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.

One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).

My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]

You often hear people say that they didn’t leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn’t leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.

And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.

Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:

The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don’t think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination.  I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let’s see if we can’t have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.

To which Advised by Wolves responds:

Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.

My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together — a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary’s side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won’t come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.

Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.

Justin Wax from the Tennessean supported Huckabee, even to the point of sending him an early campaign contribution.  But then he started learning the facts:

I was completely shocked when I read an Arkansas Leader article stating Huckabee issued more than 700 commutations and pardons during his tenure, more than Arkansas’ six neighboring states combined. I was even more repulsed when I learned the list of pardons and commutations included convicted murderers and rapists.

As a fiscal conservative, I was annoyed with Huckabee’s protectionist-sounding rhetoric and particularly his name-calling, labeling the conservative group Club for Growth, the "Club for Greed." His immigration policies as governor also gave me cause for concern, but I pushed all of Huckabee’s faults to the back of my mind, instead choosing to dwell on his pro-life record and position on the war. However, when I studied the Wayne Dumond story and Huckabee’s "desire" to see the convicted rapist released into society, alarm bells went off. After reading the Arkansas Leader article on Huckabee’s shocking propensity to side with convicted murderers and rapists over victims, I meekly pulled off my Huckabee bumper stickers.

Wax then lists his problems with the rest of the "conservative" candidates:

• I weeded out Giuliani because of his lack of integrity (multiple adulteries) and for his abortion, gun control and immigration policies.
• I never seriously considered Paul either due to his naivety on national security, specifically his anti-war rhetoric and his kooky ideas to abolish the CIA and FBI.
• But [McCain] alienated social conservatives by championing campaign finance "reform," and he kicked conservatives down the road on judges with his gang of 14 "grand compromise."
• With Mitt, I have no idea what I’m getting because he had a history of running on one platform and embracing another once he entered office. Mitt’s positions also seem more political than principled.

As nice a summation as I have seen, although I have problems with McCain that aren’t listed, primarily the fact that he hates both the First and Second amendments.

Now go read Wax’s excellent reasoning as to why Thompson is his choice for president. Money quote:

Thompson "hands down" possesses excellent judgment, and he will win because he is the most reliable, consistent, principled conservative in this race. Unleash the Fredmentum.

Nice.

The Washington Post addresses some of the tales that politicians tell:

Mitt Romney says he "saw" his father "march" with Martin Luther King Jr. Rudolph W. Giuliani claims that he is one of the "five best-known Americans in the world." According to John McCain, the Constitution established the United States as a "Christian nation." Ron Paul believes that a "NAFTA superhighway" is being planned to link Mexico with Canada and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

On the other side of the political divide, Sen. Barrack Obama says there are more young black males in prison than in college. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton claims she has a "definitive timetable" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. John Edwards insists that NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement — has cost Americans "millions of jobs." Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. boasts about his experience negotiating an arms-control treaty with Leonid Brezhnev.

All those claims, made over the past four months as part of the presidential campaign, are demonstrably false. . . .

When a candidate is caught making a clearly false statement, embarrassment or ridicule often ensues — and over time a reputation can form. But the electoral rewards derived from stretching the truth or distorting a rival’s record just as frequently outweigh the fleeting political costs.

One would hope that the political cost of telling a lie would be long term and the electoral rewards would be fleeting.

On the good side, however, WaPo also says that blogs, YouTube, information databases such as LexisNexis, and the 24-hour news cycle has resulted in mistakes and inaccuracies (and outright lies) are being identified quicker than ever. The most recent example is Huckabee’s claim that "we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border."

Newsweek paints Ron Paul as a conspiracy nut:

Ron Paul wants you to be scared. There’s a conspiracy in the land—what he calls a "conspiracy of ideas"—to give up America’s sovereignty. It’s a shadowy scheme that begins with the NAFTA "superhighway," a road as wide as several football fields that will link Mexico, the United States and Canada. . . .

Like all good conspiracies, the NAFTA superhighway is a strange stew of fact and fiction, fired by paranoia.

Problem is, there is a NAFTA superhighway. Even the Canadian province of Alberta knows about. Why, they even put it up on their website!

So Ron Paul is right. The only thing he got wrong is the timing of the conspiracy: it’s not a future event — it’s now!

[Quick! Everyone! Don your tinfoil hat now!]

HT to Digg, whose commenters provide some amusing points of view.

Not that I doubt the plans to merge North America into a single entity. After all, it’s working sooo well for Europe. </sarcasm off>

I just doubt the ability to get it done. Americans will stand by and let a lot of things happen. But merging with Mexico and Canada? I don’t think so. Not even in prosperous times.

So Mitt handily wins the Iowa GOP straw poll. Of course, fellow front-runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson didn’t even bother to participate. And Mitt spent two million dollars on television ads alone, far outpacing anyone else.

On Politics does a cost-benefit analysis of the Iowa straw poll:

• Third-place finisher Sam Brownback says he spent about $325,000 to win his 2,192 votes. That’s $148.27 for each vote.
• Second-place finisher Mike Huckabee spent about $150,000 and received 2,587 votes. That’s $57.98 per vote.
• Winner Mitt Romney has not said how much he spent. The reporting in this Washington Post article suggests at least $2 million and possibly more than twice that much. Assuming $2 million for 4,516 votes, that’s $442.87 per vote. But it could top $1,000.

More than a thousand dollars a vote? Do we really want someone who throws money around like that to be in charge of our tax dollars?

On the other hand, what kind of guy do we want? Laura Ingraham ponders that question as she notes that Huckabee is a really nice guy, but:

Which brings me to the question: Do we really want a nice president? I kind of want a mean, tough S.O.B at this point — who can cut the legs out from underneath the Dems and the dinosaur media who are invested in America’s defeat. Someone who seems pleasant on the surface but who knows how to send in the daisy-cutters when al Qaeda or Taliban thugs are sleeping.

Evidently Ms. Ingraham isn’t the only one that feels that way. Byron York notes that fourth-place Tancredo received the biggest applause of all the candidates:

The unexpected thing was that Tancredo’s applause-getter wasn’t about immigration. Instead, Tancredo told the story of Danny Dietz, a Navy SEAL who was killed in Afghanistan in circumstances Tancredo blamed on restrictive rules of engagement. “When I am president, I will never, ever, ever send anyone into harm’s way with a CYA memo drafted by a Pentagon lawyer,” Tancredo told the crowd. “The only rule of engagement I’m going to have in a Tancredo administration is this: We win, you lose!”

Right on, Tancredo! I’d have applauded too.

While Huckabee’s second place finish was a surprise, so was Ron Paul’s fifth place. Blog Critics exclaims:

Wow. He’s not polling under 1% anymore, now is he? Everyone is just going to have to come to terms with the fact that Ron Paul really does have a significant base of support, as evidenced by his impressive fund-raising and his strong online presence. He won’t win the nomination, of course, but I do expect him to be the last candidate to concede, and to give one helluva interesting speech at the GOP Convention (assuming they let him come within 100 meters of a microphone).

In spite of some very dedicated Fred Heads, Fred Thompson garnered only 1% of the vote. Still, he hasn’t even announced or started marketing himself, yet he came in ahead of well-known candidates John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Barely, but that’s got to mean something.

(Jeez, McCain came in behind Duncan Hunter. Who’s he?) 

Fred won in one way: Tommy Thompson said that he would quit the race if he didn’t come in first or second — and he finished in sixth place. If he keeps his promise, this should put a stake in the heart of his campaign. So when Fred Thompson announces and starts running in earnest, voters won’t be confused by having two Thompsons to try and keep straight.

But the real question is, “So what?” Captain Morrissey thinks that the low turnout is meaningless (there were 40% fewer votes than the one in 1999).

Personally, I think a poll that is mainly a fund-raising event for the GOP party in Iowa and that is held this far in advance of the primaries is fairly meaningless. On the other hand, W won the ’99 Iowa GOP straw poll with about the same percentage as Mitt did today, so maybe it means something after all.

Nah.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a survey as part of a fund-raising effort that ostensibly also serves to aid in setting the future direction of the party.

One question asks, “Which Republican Presidential Candidate would you support in the 2008 Primary?”. While the survey has undeclared Republicans such as Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich and Chuck Hagel listed as possible choices, current candidate Ron Paul is missing from the list.

You can view a scan of the question at Tedium who wonders:

This seems disingenuous when the most vocal voice of caution in the GOP is specifically not listed as a candidate. It should be noted that this survey also acts as a major fund rasing [sic] push. It is possible that the GOP is less concerned with party satisfaction, and more concerned with lining the party coffers?

Actually, I think that’s a rather silly question. Surveys are part of just about every fund-raising letter sent out. Besides various GOP organizations, the Heritage Foundation, Freedom Alliance and so on, I’ve received survey’s from a host of single issue PACs and 527s like English First, the NRA, the GOA and the Club for Growth. Does anyone really think that they really look at the survey results?

Call me cynical but I believe that surveys are a money-making scam: make the yokels feel like they are part of the action and they’ll open their wallets. I give to single issue organizations like those listed above because that issue is my issue — how they go about making it happen is up to them, I’m just glad someone is fighting for my side.

Interestingly, if you take a look at the online version of the survey you’ll see that Paul has been listed as choice for both president and vice-president. Was it changed because Ron Paul’s absence was noted by Tedium and subsequently Dugg this weekend, thereby raising a flag with the vocal, web-savvy component of the public?

I don’t think so. Take a look at the graph displayed after I cast my vote:

Ron Paul was running a clear second a week ago, which probably wouldn’t have happened if his name wasn’t on the list.

It’s also interesting that Fred Thompson is running a clear first, albeit in a spectacularly unscientific online poll.

I have my doubts about whether Rudy Giuliani or John McCain would ever accept candidacy for vice president. These are men used to the spotlight and taking second best isn’t in their nature.

Most of the rest don’t really matter.

But wouldn’t a Fred Thompson/Ron Paul ticket make for a winning combination?