Why Ron Paul Can't Win

From Kim Strassel, at Wall Street Journal. Strassel raises the interesting point that not that much has changed about Ron Paul from his earlier campaigns for the GOP nomination. The key significant difference is found not so much on the issues --- Paul has moderated a lot of his positions on domestic affairs --- but in the the candidate's seriousness:

Mr. Paul was largely written off in the past as an ideological crank, a man who ran primarily to have his views heard, and many political watchers have made the same mistake this time. But if there has been an overlooked theme in this race, it has been Mr. Paul's new seriousness about winning the nomination. The Ron Paul of 2012 is a different candidate from the Ron Paul of the past. Aware that his absolutist positions worry voters, the libertarian has been conducting a far more mainstream campaign.

Not that he's flipped on any major positions. The Paul campaign knows that its greatest opportunity is attracting voters who are dissatisfied with the other front-runners' policy timidity or lack of consistency. Mr. Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and it ought to make him a star....

Organizationally, the 2012 Paul campaign has also sloughed off its 2008 disdain of the establishment, and in Iowa at least Mr. Paul is engaging in retail politics, sitting down with party elders and activists. These are the efforts of a candidate newly willing to work within a certain framework, if it means a shot at the White House.

Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in. In discrete areas, Mr. Paul's "noninterventionist" approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.

But none of this has addressed voters' big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because "we've been in the Middle East."

Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage, claiming this year that 9/11 prompted "glee" in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to "invade Iraq." He's condemned the Obama administration's killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is "provoking" Iran.

Ron Paul's a freak. I posted on this last night: "Taking Ron Paul Seriously."

Added: From Linkmaster Smith at The Other McCain, "You See, Mr. Paul, History Does Not Support Scientific Experiments."