There’s a buzz buidling up out there about Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Having now viewed the Youtube of the debate, I’ll agree that he clearly stood out from the pack, articulating the views that used to define the conservative-libertarian wing of the GOP. He also made Romney et al. look the panderers they are.

Right now, the buzz I’m hearing is along the lines of “well, I like him a lot, but he’s got no chance”. I can understand the pessimism, since the public likes their pander. But I don’t see why this excludes supporting him here and now. Maybe he’d have a chance then. Frankly, I’ve never understood this desire people have to vote for the “winnah” instead of the best candidate. Isn’t it better to go down in flames with the candidate you like? Especially in this case? It’s not like if you vote for Paul in the primary, you can’t vote for Romney or whoever in the general election.

A grass-roots surge for Paul would be yet another 2×4 to the head of the GOP. Judging by the tone of the front-runners, the smack upside the head they received in November hasn’t quite taken. Maybe if Ron Paul is running a close second come January 2008, they’ll get the message.

In any case, the comparison that jumped out immediately to me while hearing him speak was Barry Goldwater. And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if we’d be best served by a Barry Goldwater in 2008 – a candidate who emerges from the shadows to lose to a Democrat through no fault of his own (1964 was Kennedy’s martyrdom; 2008 will be Bush blacklash and Obamania). But in his defeat, he infuses the GOP with the conservative-libertarian spirit that needs to be refreshed from time to time. The spirit that will produce the next Reagan.

One can hope.