Our patron Ed noted yesterday that Ron Paul (aka the love child of Howard Dean and Robert Taft) vaccumed up over four million smackers in campaign contributions on Monday alone.  This, inevitably, draws comparisons with the money machines on the Donk side of the aisle, and also to Mitt Romney, and is supposed, by the ubiquitous conventional wisdom, to indicate that the crazy little troll from the Lone Star State is a force to be reckoned with, and, according to Ed, a voice to be heeded by the GOP if the latter knows what’s good for it.

Which goes to show how grievously a political analyst can be misled if he or she gets over-focused on fundraising numbers instead of credible polling and, you know, the beguiling tentacles of mental instability.  While also taking note of Paul’s windfall, Brother Deacon counsels against mistaking the enthusiasm of a loopy few for the wisdom of the many:

But since he may command more than de minimis support, shouldn’t Republicans find a way to address his supporters? That depends on what those supporters are looking for. Captain Ed seems to assume they’re looking to a significant extent for free market policies. But that’s not how Ron Paul sees it. A few months ago, in response to a question about the expected entry of Fred Thompson into the race, Paul said this would be a good thing for him [Paul], since it would further divide the pro-war vote.

The candidate understands his campaign very well - it’s an anti-war candidacy and little else. Notice how during debates, he routinely turns questions about domestic policy - normally meat and drink for a libertarian - back to Iraq

The only other seriously distinguishing feature of the campaign is that it’s nutty. Being anti-war is respectable, but Paul’s opposition to the war is founded on conspiracy theories, over-the-top isolationism, and an unhealthy dose of hostility to Israel. Paul’s opposition to big government is not a distinguishing feature. There are plenty of other Republican candidates this cycle who embrace small government conservatism. Again, the only only distinguishing feature of Paul’s small government platform is its nuttiness - the gold standard, the Federal Reserve conspiracy stuff, etc.

In short, it doesn’t matter how much lucre Ron Paul scoops up, he still doesn’t matter.

Ordinarily that’s where this post would have ended.  But then I experienced a vicarious epiphany that I’m irritated didn’t strike me directly:

At the same time, it seems to surprise many that Paul’s undeniable grassroots effectiveness hasn’t translated to a showing either in national or state polls. That’s surely due to the fact that many if not most of those who are sending money to Paul are not, in fact, Republicans. They are more plausibly among the 3 million or so who voted for Ralph Nader on the Green Party line in 2000, or even among those who rained money down on Howard Dean in the summer of 2003.

Which brings to mind an interesting scenario for 2008: Could Ron Paul run an independent candidacy for president in 2008 on a libertarian/anti-war/anti-monetarist platform? At this moment, it seems plausible, especially if the Democratic party nominates Hillary Clinton, who is bizarrely considered a neocon hawk by the Left netroots.

A third-party wild card has always been part of the Clinton election strategy.  Mr. Bill’s Texas nutbag was Ross Perot, who tailored his appeal to “deficit hawks” (i.e. those who believe that a balanced budget is more economically important than lower taxes).

I’ve believed for years that John McCain would be Hillary’s blocker in the 2008 general election.  Since ”Sailor” has always believed that he got “cheated” out of “his turn” at the GOP nomination in 2000, and has taken it out on his own party ever since, AND has about as much chance at the 2008 nod as Rosie O’Donnell becoming America’s Top Model,  it has always stood to reason that he would exact his ultimate revenge by running as an “independent,” sabotaging the Republican ticket and ensuring the election of every conservative’s arch enemy to the presidency.

I’m not convinced McCain won’t take that plunge.  But his stable of natural running mates seems to have dwindled with the bowing out of the Senate of Chuck Hagel and the decision of Lindsey Graham to seek re-election.

Enter Ron Paul.  Not as McCain’s running mate, but as McCain’s replacement.  He doesn’t differ all that much from Perot, other than his anti-war dimension, a situation which didn’t exist during Perot’s two quixotic runs.  And while RP wouldn’t seem to syphon away many Republican votes, he could keep just enough independents from pulling the lever or hanging the chad for Fred or Rudy or Mitt to hand Hillary her idea of the Holy Grail.

Yeah, J-Pod suggests that Paul would detract from Hillary more than her GOP rival (hence his parallel to Ralph Nader).  But I see his sabotage flowing the other direction.  Otherwise his mangled (political) corpse will be found in a (figurative) ditch somewhere long before Election Day.

Can’t be tripping up the Arizona Maverick, after all.