Now we have a candidate who is staunchly pro-2nd, wants to stop taking your money, and basically restore what it means to be free, and all people can do is say 'he's not electable', or worse, 'hes a kook'.
Uh, some of us have lived through enough elections to figure that a 2nd Amendment candidate who can win is worth more than one who can't. The difference is approximately infinity, plus or minus a few.
So, some people think Paul is electable, whereas some think he's a kook. That's their opinion, and they have a right to it.
But if you honestly think that he can't win, then it makes perfect sense to look for a pro-2A candidate who can. Right now, that seems to be Fred Thompson. Maybe that's true, maybe not.
Realistically, we now have a Democratic Congress. A Democrat NRA F-rated President (every single Democrat but Richardson) will rubber-stamp every anti-gun bill the Congress will pass, and they WILL start in February 2009. A Republican NRA A-rated President is our chance for a veto. Our only chance.
Sorry to rain on the idealistic parade, but most of the Founding Fathers knew that liberty is always about playing a good defense. That's why there's a Bill of Rights. Gridlock might be our best hope in 2008.
Maybe we have a shot at playing offense, but usually that happens after you play defense for a little while successfully. 2010 is not so far away. Elect Clinton, or Guiliani, and there's no chance of playing offense in 2010.
Strategy matters. Gridlock is
de facto more libertarian than a one-party government -- either party.