Neither group thinks that Ron Paul is wrong on all matters, and neither endorses all that he advocates. Progressive opponents of Ron Paul (hereafter PORPs) make a good point. If progressives support Ron Paul unconditionally and he wins, he is under no obligation to listen to our concerns over his economic policy. He truly longs for the day when we are all Austrians. Progressives unconditionally endorsing Ron Paul (hereafter PUERPs) are running a fool's errand, which might end wars abroad but start thousands in ever city, village and hamlet. (Think about who owns the guns.)
I am not sure that PUERPs actually exist. Some Democrats are actually libertarians who previously could not make a deal with coporatists, militarists and conservative cultural imperialists like their Republican counterparts. Now with Ron Paul not concerned with their legal sexual status or pot smoking, they have migrated to their homeland. Other progressives like myself, no longer disillusioned but realistic about the process of lowest common denominator politics, see in Paul a way to set Republican corporatism back by giving them a dose of their own divide and conquer medicine back.
We had more than 50 reliably progressive Democratic Senators on our side in 2009-10 with a huge majority in the House and a real progressive in the White House. Whether or not he was or is a progressive is meaningless. If Obama suddenly became George McGovern, we would still face the 60 Senator hurdle for the next 5 years, with several less than 50 reliable progressives.
Let's be optimistic and say we get the House back. The Senate is still too far gone and Democrats will be very lucky to hang on to 51 seats.The only way the Senate gets 60 anti-empire advocates is to turn 15 Republicans libertarian. This will not happen without Ron Paul in the general election debate.
I'm guessing that if a 3 way race were held today he would get 20% of the vote with a fourth coming from progressive Democrats. He would insure an Obama victory. If he does not do well, finishing 3rd in the Republican primaries, he will probably endorse Gary Johnson. I think he might change his mind if he manages to get above 30% of the Republican votes and beats Rick Santorum for 2nd place. He would be a fool not to go 3rd party if he edged out Romney for first and forced the convention to reject him.
The only way for Paul to place 2nd or 1st in the Republican race is through a large influx of progressives. Most of us being labelled PUERPs are totally on board with Ron Paul for the primary but are holding out on supporting him in the general election. We would like to see if he decides to go coalition or stick to his one winged message. I have yet to see any major progressive spell out why they reject this strategy. Could it be they have no sensible argument? I would encourage anyone reading this to pass the question on to Rachel Maddow, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Young Turks, Democracy Now etc..... Surely they have an answer to shut this redneck country preacher up.
Since, I'm guessing they want to keep their Democratic credentials, they ain't touching this, and as long as nobody important mentions it, they are probably safe. So I'll plow this lonely field by myself for now and pray that someone smarter and wiser than I will either show me the light or finally admit the redneck ain't so dumb after all. Until then, PORPs please pile on.